Planning Commission Agenda 10-07-2003
.
.
.
fZw
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - October 7, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. and David Rietveld
Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
I. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held September 2. 2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
'5. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request lor a 3 toot variance to the required setbacks for
residential driveways. Applicants: Leola Backstrom and Heidi & Wayne Bachler
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing car washes by
conditional use permit in the central community district. Applicant: Broadway K\.vik Stop, LLC
7, Continued public hearing to eousider a request lor a conditional use pennit allowing a carwash
in the central community district. and a request for a variance to the butferyard requirements.
Applicant: Broadway Kwik Stop, LLC
8. Item removed from agenda.
9. C onsiderati on 0 fall owi ng property Owner opportun ity to supply parki ng at a rate whie his 60%
of the standard requirement.
10. Consideration of amendments to the city's sign ordinance addressing "Sand\.vich Board"
(Portable Signs) in the CCD Zoning District.
II. Set date "" open house/workshop to discuss possible amendmems to the comprehensive plan
regarding single family to attached townhouse unit ratios.
I ~. Adjourn
1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09.02/03
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesda)' - September 2, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. David Rietveld and Council
Liaison Brian Stumpf
Lloyd Hilgart
.IeffO'Neill and Steve Grittman
Absent:
Staff:
I, Call to order
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m, and declared a quorum. noting the
absence of Commissioner Hilgart. Building Onicial Patch. and Deputy City Administrator
O'Neill.
2. A roval of the minutes of the re ular Plannin J Commission meetina held Au ust 5. 2003
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICJ-IARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE AUGUST 5. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Approval of the minutes of the special Planninl! Commission meeting held AUl!ust 25. 2003.
Chair Frie noted the incorrect date on the special meeting minutes, there \\"t~re no other
corrections.
A f\10TION WAS MADE B'{ RICHARD CARLSON Te) APPROVE THE IVIlNUTES OF
THE AUGUST 25.2003 SPECIAL PLANN1NG COMMISSION MEETING, WITH
CORRECTION ON DATE OF AGENDA. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL't'.
3. Consideration of uddin!! items to the a!.!enda.
Chair Frie advised that due to the length of the agenda, the Planning Commission \\;ould not
be addressing additional items at this meeting. He did note however. that the November 4,
2003 Planning Commission meeting would need to be discussed due to a conflict with local
School Board elections on that date. This will be discussed at the end of the agenda.
4. Citizens comments. None
5.
Continued Public Hearin!! - Consideration of a request for an interim use permit allowing
outside storage as a principal use in an 1-2 zoning district. Applicant: Jav MorrelIlJME of
Monticello
-I.
Planning Commission i\linutes - 0902 03
Steye Grittman. City Planner. proyided the report and stated ordinance requirements that
specifically relate to the interim use permit in the 1-2 district. adyising that this property is
already being used for storage. He adyised that staff determined an initial period of 5 years
for the length of the interim use permit. as well as noting the 1:5 conditions ,,,hich the
applicant would need to comply with if approved. Grittman ad,'ised that an updated site
plan had been provided to staff today as well.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Morrell. 140] Fallon A \e. \\'ished to discuss the
items in the conditions listed in the statT report. Regarding condition 1. he asked that the
city notify him prior to the permit expiring and Grittman stated there would be a "Titten
agreement bet,,,een he and the city as well. Condition 3 - Morrell requested a variance from
prohibiting parking of automobiles. advising that this is a payed lot and he would like to
continue parking on that site. Condition 4 ~ There is currently a recycled concrete surface on
this site. which he felt the city would approye of. Condition 5 - He advised there are 2
berms listed on the plan. both blocking total visibility to the nOlth and south: there are also
trees and a fence: and the west side of the lot has a 6 1'1. high concrete fence for screening.
Condition 7 - He did not feel this was necessary as they have a retention pond which serves
the entire 10 acre parcel. Conditions 8 and 9 - He feels they are already in compliance.
Condition] 0 - they do not plan to light this site. Condition] 3 - He was concerned with not
being able to park unlicensed trucks as they are allowed to remove licenses throughout the
calendar year, further explaining that they purchase vehicles that may not be licensed or used
immediately if they are not needed at the time. He also stated he has no junk on that
property. Condition 14 - He again statl.?d that they were in compliance. as stated in
condition 5. Finally. in regard to condition 15 - he is not U\vare of any nuisance acti\'ities.
.
Chair Frie asked Grittman to respond to the comments by Morrell. specifically in regard to
condition 13. and asked if a \"(.'hick needed to be liccnsl'd regardless of its agl'. Grittman
stated that part of the ordinance defines junk vehicles as unlicensed vehicles. hO\vever he felt
that if this \\'as storage. it \\'Ol.lld be at the Planning Commission's discretion. Frie asked if
there were vehicles currently on the site that were unlicensed and Morrell stated several. all
operable. just not in use at this time.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There ".-as further discussion regarding the
prohibiting of parking and Morrell again stated that he is leasing to a business that currently
parks on that site. and the parking is for his employees as well as tenants. Frie then
addressed the site plan submitted to them this evening and noted it looked like the surface
was paved. which it was. Dragsten asked about the lighting and Morrell stated they do not
intend to put up lighting. although there is lighting at the 1401 Fallon Ave. building. but
stated that should not be part of this discussion. Dragsten further stated that it was his
understanding there has been correspondence in writing back and forth between the city and
the applicant. addressing lighting and other issues. and felt this was the time to address them.
Grittman advised that the applicant wished to have this request dealt with separately.
although Dragsten still felt it should be addressed at this time as it is part of the conditions .
for approval. Grittman stated that was true. Frie asked Morrell to explain the rationale, or
elaborate why he operated on this property without a permit for such a long period of time.
.~.
.
.
~
.....
Planning Commission rvlilllllt'S' 090~ 03
l'vlorrell stated that at that time. his understanding \vas that if he ,owned the property next to
this parcel he would not need a permit. He ultimately traded a parcel at that time to be
adjacent to the site. Frie stated with that in mind. if approved and for the record. could
T\lorrelllive with the] 5 conditions as stated and Morrell advised yes. with the exception of
conditions 3. 13. and 7. Frie then asked Grittman to respond to the drainage comment in
condition 7 and he stated that it is a typical requirement in these cases to haw the City
Engineer revie\\' and comment. There was no fUl1her discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE INTERIUM USE PERMIT. SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC
AND GENERAL STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING A TERM
OF FIVE YEARS DOCUMENTED BY A SIGNED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
AND THE APPLICANT. AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. OMITTING
CONDITIONS 3 AND 7. SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS
PLAN WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING
ORDINANCE. IF THE APPLICANT EXPECTS TO HA VE ANY OF THESE
STANDARDS FORGIVEN. A VARIANCE APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED. IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF IS NOT A WARE OF
CONDITIONS ON THE SITE THAT WOULD SUPPORT VARIANCE APPROVAL
RIO-lARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Morrell then asked if an agreement would be entered into and it was noted that it would be.
6.
Continued Public Hearin ) - Consideration of rel uest for a sim Ie subdivision to create 1\vo
city lots. and consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback. Anplicant: Kathleen
Gauthier
City Planner Steve Grittmall prm'ided the report stating that pre\'iollsly staff had concerns
that another lot may not be buildable with the standards of the Wild & Scenic Act. In
reviewing the revised site plan. it appears that the lots would meet the requirements. with the
exception of the top corner of the second lot. or ne\\ site location. which would need to be
"trimmed ofT' to meet the 50 f1. setback for the OHW standards. The buildable area would
be a bit smaller than what is shown on the plan, but would meet standards. Staff is
recommending approval of the subdivision. ho\\-e\'er they do not believe that the variance is
justified.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Kathleen Gauthier. applicant. advised that she wants
to split the lot in order to sell the lot. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE FOLLOVdNG: THE CREATION OF
TWO LOTS WITH NEW LOT AREAS OF MORE THAN 15.000 SQUARE FEET
WITHIN THE SHORELAND AREA OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. Tl--IIS
RECOMMENDA TlON BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS
'J
-(-)....
Planning. Commission Tv1 inutes - 09 '0203
CONSISTENT WITH TI-IE REQUIEMENTS OF Tl-IE CITY'S ZONING AND
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH PARCELS. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY TIlE VARIANCE. BASED
ON A FINDING THAT NO UNIQUE HARDSHIP EXISTS. AND THAT THE LOT 1\1/\ Y
BE SUBDIVIDED AND BUILT ON WITHOUT A VARIANCE. DAVE RIETVELD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANl!'v10USL '}T.
7. Continued Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a request for a yariance to the side yard setback
requirements to allow construction of a l!aral!e. Applicant: Dayid Kranz
City Planner Steye Grittman proyided the stafT report noting that the applicant is wishing to
build a garage flush to his existing garage. \yhich \vould encroach \\-ithin 6 f1. of the ROW.
The expansion is to store a motor home. Grittman adyised that a garage could be
constructed \vithout a yariance. although not to the applicant's expectations.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. David Kranz. 743 W. Broadway. stated that since the
last meeting. he met with Fred Patch to revise this plan and moved the garage back 4 ft. from
the original dra\ving. It is now 8.2 ft. from the property line and is within the 1,200 sq. f1.
maximum allowed by ordinance. He didn't think the garagc would look good if it was set
back 20 feet and did not feel there \vcre any safety factors. noting that in the 45 years he has
lived there. no safety issues have eyer come up. He stated that curb cut access is already in
place. The new dimensions of the garage are 14'x 40'. Chair Frie then closed the public
hearing.
.
Carlson asked for claritication on the dimensions as he recalled at the last meeting they
talked about a possible 36 ft. addition. Kranz stated that was not large enough for a 34 y~ ft.
motorhome he may purchase in the future and also noted that he plans to store his R V year
around. Frie concurred with Kranz that they sa\\ no safety issues, F rie also asked him about
the possibility of building this garage within the required setbacks. but Kranz felt it would be
too close to his neighbor's property. \\'ho was not in fay or of that location as it \\ould block
the yiew to Broadway. Stumpf concurred that it would take up a majority of the back yard if
built there. Stumpf also noted that there is an existing shed that \vill be remowd. Kranz
stated he \vas comfortable \vith the conditions for approyal.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FROM THE
MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE
PLACED 8 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SUBJECT TO 'rI-IE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. BASED ON A FINDING TlIA T APPROVAL WILL NOT
IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY:
UNREASONABL Y INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET:
INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY; .
UNREASONABLY DIMINSH OR IMPAIR ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALUES
WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN ANY OTHER WAY BE CONTRARY TO TIlE
- 1-
.
.
.......
.......
Planning Commission I\linlltcs- 09 (l~ 03
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. AND T1--IE SUBJECT PROPt:RT'r' CANNOT BE Pl:T
TO REASONABLE USE IF TJ--II: VARIANCE REQUEST IS DENIED. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Jeff O'Neill arri\\~d at 6:40 p.m.
8.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and
consideration of an amendment to a concept stage planned unit develcmment for Otter Creek
Crossin!!. Applicant: Otter Creek. LLC
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the report stating the applicants wish tor an
amendment to the comprehensive plan to accommodate approx. 19 acres of property for
residential land uses. Staff has discussed this at length: the city's longstanding policy is to
support industrial development and maximize industrial development opportunities,
therefore staff does not support the amendment. Grittman advised that the IDC generally
supplms the amendment only if industrial land remains and suggested the residential land be
placed further to the south. He further discussed the power line issue in the proposed
residential area, again stating that the IDC proposed a compromise at their meeting earlier
today and provided a copy of their decision for the Planning Commission's review. Chair
Frie stated that he did not n::call any input provided to them by the Parks Commission to date
and O'Neill advised that they typically review and provide input at a later stage. frie
advised that the Parks Commission does not support parks placed under power lines. Rod
[)ragstcn stated he was unclear at this time with the IDCs recommendation as stated. as they
typically want to keep industrial land.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. John Chadwick. applicant. advised that he was at the
IDC meeting earlier and that they \\we in support of their concept plan. He further stated he,
\vould like to clarii)' pO\ver poles versus transmission lines. He provided a concept plan
sho\\ing a po\\er pole running thruugh their site. as \\ell as nne that runs through the
Groveland residential development and a proposed residential development across 1-94.
Chadv.ick then prov-ided a concept plan with transmission lines. pointing out that they are
different from power pokos, and that this \,vould definitely be in an industrial area. not
residential. He further advised of tree cover in that area. as well as a large wetland area of
approx. 14 acres. which they feel arc amenities tor a residential de\'elopment.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Dragsten again noted that he \vas not comfortable
with the interpretation of the IDCs recommendation. Chadwick stated there had been
discussion regarding wetlands, tree coverage. etc.. and the IDC also had a better
understanding of power poles versus transmission lines. Grittman clarified that his
interpretation of the IDCs recommendation was that the IDC tCels that some residential R-
2A is acceptable. They recommend reducing the residential density in the 19 acres of Area
C by incorporating industrial development along the po\ver lines and enforcing the R-2A
standards. Grittman also noted that this could be resolved at the concept stage.
Dragsten did not feel they could amend the plan without knowing the amount of land to
-. )-
Planning Commission Minut(:s- 09 02 (J~
reduce. Grittman ad\"ised them to possibly not state an exact amount of land designated for .
residential. Grittman also added that the comprehensi\"c plan is not the zoning plan. and
therefore it could be somewhat tlexible.
A MOTION WAS MADE 13\' DAVE RIETEVELD TO RECOt\1MEND APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMI:NT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RE-DESIGNA"fING TilE
SOUTHWESTERN-MOST PORTION OF TilE 19 ACRE SITE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RETAI1\:ING THE 11\:DUSTRIAL DESIGl\ATION
ALONG THE PO'NER LINE. SUBJECT TO DENSIT't' 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 RESIDr~NTlAL USES THAN INDUSTRIAL USES. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED TI--IE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Carlson that he felt by appro\"ing the motion as stated. the
Planning Commission \\ou1d be appro\"ing it as primarily residential. Frie felt the result of
the decision is based on the tabling of the concept stage PUD decision and that the land use
decision is contingent on results of the site plan in the PUD concept. Carlson further stated
he did not want the connotation that they arc recommending more residential. hut rather it he
less than the 19 acres. Dragsten felt that reducing the 19 acres of residential yvould only
make the area another small island of housing and feels that it should remain as industrial
land as stated in the comp plan. Chair Frie then asked Chadwick to justify changing the land .
use policy. Chad\\-ick stated that there is a 109 acre residential site to the "est of this site
which abuts the propeny. so the proposed residential would not be alone. He again noted the
site has tree co\"erage and a large \vetland. and that there are not a lot of areas in the city with
those amenities. He also noted it would be a go()d tax hase. frie then asked Chac1\\ick
about the plans for the industrial portion and Chach\"ick stated there is a great deal (If interest,
in this industrial site. advising that they have heen in discussions with several existing
businesses that \\ould he interested in rel(lcating \\ hid1 arc currently located (In prime land
in Monticello.
THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
AMOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CONCEPT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A DETACHED TOW]\;HO\IE
DEVELOPMENT. SUBJECT TO A MORE DETAILED PLAN AND CITY REVIEW.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Public Hearinc - Consideration of a Conditionall1se Permit aI10winu a drive throuch
carwash in the Central Communit\" District and Consideration of a \"arianee to the buffervard
requirements. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik Stop. LLC
Steve Grittman provided the staff report regarding the applicant' s proposal for a car wash on .
his site. He further stated that car washes are allowed in the B-3 district. but do not roll over
-(i-
.
.
.....
........-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09'0203
into the CCD. 1 100\\'\'er. if the city is in support of a car \Vash it could be added to the CCD
as an allo,,'ahle use by amending the ordinance. Staff did not ha\'e any major concerns with
the site plan. only that there is no zoning category at this time. Stumpf asked if the DA Thad
mt:t and ifso. "'hat "as their direction. Chair Frie noted that he did recei,'e their comments
on the "'ay into the meeting and would pro\'ide thcm to the commissioners. He suggested
gi\'ing the illformation to the applicant for him to rc\'ie'" and address. and possibly table any
action at this time.
Chair hie then opened the public hearing, Tom Holthaus, applicant. stated that originally
they did not intend to move this quickly, but they anticipated that there would be concerns to
be "'orked out. therefore they decided to mow forward at this time. Frie asked with the
proposed amendment would they still need a variance and Grittman ad\'ised yes; Frie
wanted the applicant and adjacent property Owners to ha\'e a chance to review the comments
made by the Design Ad\'isory Team. Holtahus stated that he \\'Ould like to move forward
with their sign request as they are still operating off the previous sign. It was ad,'ised that
both items could be acted on in one meeting. hie clarified fl.)r the applicant and the people in
attendance. that this item would be tabled and addressed at the next meeting in October.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE OCTOBER 7.
2003 PLANNING COMlvlISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDLD TI'IE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
A tvl0TION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE OCTOBER 7. ~003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER
AN AlvlENDMENT TO THE CCO LANGUAGE TO ALLOW CAR WASHES BY
CONDITION:\L l 'SE PFRJ\1JT I\: THE CU\TRAL COi\IMUNrT'{ DISTRICT.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANL\-10L'SL 'y".
10,
Public J-learin!.! - Consideration of a request f()r a "aria!1ce to the lot area in the R-2 Qistrict
and Consideration of are uC'st for a sim Ie suhdi,'ision to create two huildable 1arcels.
Anplical1t: Mike Cn
Ste\'e Grittman prO\'ickd the staff report and ad,'ised that the applicant is requesting to
suhdi\'ide his parcel at the southwest corner of 61h Street and Minnesota which is currently
zoned R-2. He further explained that the parcel "'as a combination of 2 original lots and
with the lots combined, they would be allowed to build at a higher density of possibly 3 or 4
units. The lot area would be less than what is currently allov"'ed by ordinance and therefore
the applicant needs a variance.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr, 60 I Minnesota Street applicant stated it
was his intent to at some point build another home on that lot. Frie asked Grittman for
clarification on density not being increased. but lowered. if the lot was split. Grittman stated
that in the R-2 zoning district 2 family homes are permitted and a 3 or 4 family structure
-7-
Planning. Commission Minute,- 09020':;
could be built on the ,,'hole structure in this district. Therefore. by diyiding the lot and .
granting a variance. density would be lowered. Rich Carlson further stated that the applicant
would not have needed a yarianee under the pn:\'ious zoning standards.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
BASED ON A fINDING THAT COMPLAINCE WITH THE REGULATIONS RESULTS
IN AN UNREASONABLE RESULT, AND AS SUCH. A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN
PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE \VlTIIOUT TI-IE VARIANCE.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE lvl0TION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOtvlMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION. CONTINGENT ON THE APPROV AL OF THE LOT \VIDTH AND
AREA VARIANCES. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
II.
ermit to allow
Jeff O'Neill provided a brief summary of the applicant" s request to hire an employee for .
their home salon. noting that under certain circumstances another person could be brought in
to a home business such as this. There have been no complaints regarding the salon.
O'Neill adyised of the city's ordinance regarding home occupations and stated that if the
Planning Commission appro\cs. stafT has proyided conditions for the applicant to fa 110\\-.
Chair Frie opcned the public hcaring. Dayid and Kelly GassIer. 6117 Mill Run Road.
addressed the Planning Commission. Frie asked the Gass\cr's to clarify their request and
they stated that they want to continue as a one chair. family business salon and arc not
wanting to add an employee out of demand for more service or hours. but to increase their
income and fully utilize their space. They haye a child that they would like to keep out of
daycare and the employee \\-ould be working when the applicant could noL and therefore
their request. Gassier further explained that he informed 13 of his neighbors of their intent:
people further away did not know they had a salon and neighbors close by were only
concerned if there would be additional yehicles. GassIer assured them that it will remain a
one chair salon, one appointment at a time, and the neighbors were satisfied with that.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. It was stated that the ordinance lists hours of
operation of a home occupation to be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.. except with no vehicle parking on
the streets and work remains indoors. The applicants stated that the hours would not go over
40 hours per week; a limit of 20 hours maximum. per person. based on a 2 person staff.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ALLOW A NON-RESIDENT
TO WORK IN THE HOME OCCUPATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
.
-K-
.
.
..
.,.
CONDITIONS:
Planning COlllmission \Iinutcs- 09 0:: 03
I.
The non-resident shall not work at th\.' homc ocCupation at the same time that thc
resident is \\orking.
Non-resident vchicle parking should occur in the residence drivcway.
A space for parking in the driveway for Cllstomers shall be a\ai lab Ie at all times.
Resident parking in the street should not result f,'om making spac\.' 1i.1r customer
parking in the dri\"l:way.
All other terms of the previous home occupation shall be met along with standards
identified in the loning ordinance.
The duration of the permit is one year \\ith the renewal process at the discretion of
city staff. I r staff receives complaints or finds that the applicant is not complying
with conditions notcd above to the detriment of the neighborhood then the
applicant will be requested to renew the special home occupation permit via
Planning Commission and City Council revie\\.
Hours of operation for home occupation to be 7:00 a.m. to J 0:00 p.m. A
maximum 01'40 hours per week. 20 hours maximum per person. based on a 2
person staff
..,
.,
.) .
4.
5.
6.
MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLlCANT HAS PROVEN UNUSUAL
OR UNIQUE CONDITIONS OR NEED FOR NON-RESIDENT ASSISTANCE. AND
THAT THIS EXCEPTION WOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE INTENT OF THIS
CHAPTER. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE l\'IOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
12.
Public Ifearin!.! - Consideration of a request for a 14 foot variance to the rcar vard setback to
allow addition of a 16' \: 16' deck. and consideration of a reClllest to amend the zoninl!
!c)!-dinance c1arif\in!.! definition of~_led:s and~or ()J)en porches for purpose of setback
clarification. ADplicant: Pat & AIl!.!ie Ronamc
Steve Grittmdn provided the report and noted the appl icant' s request for a \-ariance to the
rear yard setbacks to bui Id their deck. He further noted that staff encouraged the applicant to
further request an amendment to the zoning ordinance to identity the terms and establish
parameters for allowable setback encroachments. Rather than recommending a variance.
staff felt an amendment to the zoning ordinance would be better.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. and hearing no response the public hearing \\as closed.
Frie asked Grittman if the applicant \Vere to change the dimensions of the deck would it
then conform and Grittman stated that there \\ould be room on the garage side of their
hOllse. but would cause problems with accessibility. He further stated that the applicant
could construct a deck to fit within the ordinance. but not to the applicant's expectations.
HO\vever. Grittman stated staff felt the request \vas a legitimate and common request and
therefore their suggestion for the amendment. They further discussed language in the current
ordinance. There was further discussion on allowing decks on 2nd levels to encroach into the
setbacks and Grittman stated most communities allow those. but only up to a certain height.
The proposed amendment only clarifies that decks are included in the language.
-~)-
Planning CClll1ll1ission tv! inutes - 09 02 '03
A MOTION WAS tvlADE BY DICK FRIE TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEY\10NSTRATED
UNIQUE PHYSICAL HARDSHIP AND TI-LA-T AN ABILITY EXISTS TO CONSTRUCT
A DECK WITHIN THE SIDE YARDS OF THE PROPERTY. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
A MOTION \VAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMtv1END APPROVAL OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDi\1ENT. BASED ON A FINDING TI-IA T IT IS
CONSISTENT' \VITH Tl-IE GOAL OF ENCOlJRAGING REINVESTMENT IN TilE
CITY'S EXISTING I-lOUSING STOCK. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Public Hearinl.! B Consideration of a request for dnelopment stal!e planned unit
development and prcliminarv plat approval of the Emerald Estates Townhomes. Applicant:
Tom Johnson. Emerald Estates. LLC
Steve Grittman provided the report advising that the applicant"s plan meets the general
outline of the original approval. Staff is requesting the applicant to modify the elevations to
specify finish materials. as well as enhance the landscaping. As part of the PUD approval,
enhanced landscaping was something staffrequired of the applicant. Grittman suggested
possibly adding patio spaces with pavers, ornamental fencing or arbors. or other similar
features. He also suggested adding more and larger trees reflecting the developed .
neighborhood. Lighting plans. a grading. drainage. and utility plan approved by the City
Engineer. and a development agreement would also need stafT approval. O'Neill advised of
park dedication fees in the amount of $868/per unit.
Chair Frie opened the puhlic hearing. Tom Johns(1I1. applicant. advised that he \\"as not
aware of park dedication fees previously. There V.ias no further discussion and the public
hearing \\"(\s then closed.
Grittman was asked to elaborate on \\'hat stafT \vas looking for in regard to landscaping and
he noted they had not done a detailed study at this time. but it appears that there arc
opportunities f()r small patio spaces. decorative fencing. arbors/trellises. and private city
space. He further advised that the Planning Commission had prc\'iously granted a variance
to encroach into the front yard setbacks. which in turn they would ask for amenities for the
view from the front of the homes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR EMERALD EST A TES. BASED ON THE
COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2.2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z.
DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF .
THE PRELIMINAR Y PLAT FOR EMERALD EST A TES. BASED ON THE COMMENTS
-10.
.
.
.
Planning Commissi\l11 MintIlCS' 09020:;
FROM Tl-IE STAFF RI:PORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PLANNING
COMi\lISSION j\lr~ETING. AND CONDITIONS STATED I!\: EXHIBIT Z. DAVE
RIETVELD SI::COND[]) THE f\10TION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I~.
Public I !carinI! - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowinll a mixed
residential and commereialuse in a PZM district. Applicant: J.anice f\1axson
Jeff CYNeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the report noting the applicant" s request
ll) operate a woolen shop for retail sales and classes out of her home. This is a PZM district
which is intended to be a transition zone between commercial and residential. parking will
he contained in the current drive\vay ,,'hich is a horseshoe type drive, the thinking being that
the ~3.5 sq. ft. of retail space would not require over 3 parking spaces. other than during class
times. At some point. if the business were to increase. they may need to review again.
Dragsten questioned the discrepancy with the number of students stated by the applicant at
one time and the number stated in Exhibit Z.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Janice Maxson. applicant at 448 W. Broad\vay.
advised the number of students would be approximately 4 at a time, two hour classes, one or
two times a month. Maxson pointed out that her business ",;ould also help the quilt shop in
town. as well as the deli stating the need for catering from time to time. She wants to
maintain the house as a historical site and if her business were to increase and traffic became
a problem. Maxson stated she would prefer to rent retail space rather than alter the home. It
"'as noted again that there \vould generally be from one to four cars at one time.
Chair Frie closed the puhlic hearing. Frie asked about establishing hours of operation. which
the applicant agreed to as 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a "veek. There was discussion
on signage. \\hich the applicant stated shl." did not want a lighted sign, but had envisioncJ
t\\'o posts with a sign in the middle. something that fit with the character of the house. It was
1ll1tl'd that there are restrictions on signagl' and CarlsPI1 felt the proposed sign \\as excessive.
O'Neill stated start'did not have access to a sign plan at the time of the report and it would
need to be re\iewec1. M01:\son stated it might possibly bc 6 ft. \\ide. but was not sure at this
time and further stated she \\"auld meet whate\'Cr the ordinance requirements are. O'Neill
stated that the Planning Commission had some latitude to guide the applicant. There was
discussion on setbacks as the house is currently only 10ft. from the propel1y line and the
sign \\"Cmld need to be 15ft. from the right of way. which Carlson stated the applicant should
adhere to. as well as to scale down the sign. Grittman advised possibly referring the sign to
the OAT for it"s input on design and location. although it is not in the CCD. The majority of
the commissioners concurred. although Carlson didn't feel the DA T could make that
determination. Grittman advised that the City Council could actually make that
determination, although Carlson didn't feel the Planning Commission should be giving these
decisions to DA T. It was clarified that the City Council would determine the DA r s
request. Maxson asked if she could put a temporary sign in the window: there was no
objection and no further discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP
-11-
Planning Cummission Minutcs - Ol)'02 '03
ALLOV'/ING A MIXED RESIDENTIAL/CO]\vIMERCIAL USE BASED ON THE .
FINDING TIIA T THE PROPOSED USE. \\7ITI-1 CONDITIONS NOTED IN EXI-IIBIT Z.
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE PZM DISTRICT. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
IS. Consideration to call for a . ublic hearing for 1'0 osed amendment to the sign ordinance
re 'arding sandwich board signs in the Central Community District.
.lefT O'Neill pro\'ided the report ad\'ising that seyeral months ago a request was made to the
City Council to allow sandwich board signs. which the ordinance currently does not allow.
There had been preyious discussion on what should be allowed in the boulcyards. as well as
a result of some of the latitude by staff allowing these signs during road constrtlction. There
was a positiye response from businesses for allowing these and O'Neill stated some
communities do allow' them. O'Neill suggested setting up a strategic plan for consistency
with the downtown revitalization plan and asked the Planning Commission to call for a
public hearing.
There was discussion that the OAT and Chamber provide input as well. They discllssed
getting a small group together to gather input and bring feedback to the Planning
Commission for them to make their decision. Grittman suggested checking with other
communities that allow sandwich board signs and bring that information back to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission concllrred.
16. November 4. 2003 Plannin~ Commission meetin!..!.
.
Chair Frie ad\'ised that in checking with city staff. the November meeting falls on election
dm. It \\as ac!\'ised that the School Board will be holdill!..! an election and therd(l/"l' no citv
. ~. ,
meetings call be conducted during those hours. Therefore. Frie suggested holding the
meeting Oil 1\londay. Noyembcr 3'd. Stllmpfadvised that hc \\oulcJ not be ayailablc the first
Monday of the month. There was no fllt1her discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO I\'10VE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO MONDA Y. NOVEMBER 3. 2003. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rich Carlson asked if anyone was planning on attending the upcoming planning conference
and it \.\"as advised to Contact Lori Kraemer regarding registration.
17. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
9:05 P.M. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
~'~"^-- ,Recorder
.
-12-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/03
5.
Puhlie Hearine: Consideration of a request to subdiyide an existiDl! two-
family unit into sepnrate parcels. Applicant: Wayne and Heidi Bachler' and
Leola Backstrom. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backeround.
The applicants are seeking the subdivision of an existing two-family home into
two separate salable parcels. each with one attached dwelling unit. 'rhe
underlying zoning and densities are not affected by this proposal. The zoning
ordinance specifically provides for this type of subdivision. forgiving the required
building setbacks that would ordinarily apply to property lines.
The primary issue raised by the request is the creation of a property line that runs
through the existing driveway. Under the zoning regulations. residential
drive\\'ays are required to maintain a three foot setback to provide for drainage
and landscaping. In addition. residential driveways are intended to have a
maximum width at the street of24 feet. The current driveway violates this
standard.
In order to approve the subdivision and avoid creating a setback non-conformity,
the applicants should be required to remove the necessary section of driveway to
achieve a three foot setback along both sides of the new property line. With this
condition. any potential non-conforming driveway width would be corrected. and
the subdivision would not create a new zoning violation.
B. Alternatiye Actions.
Decision I: Subdivision of an existing t\\>'()-family home.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision. based on a finding that
the application is consistent with the zoning ordinance allowances for such
subdivisions. A condition of approval would be removal of existing
driveway to comply with both the maximum drive\\-ay width and
residential driveway setback requirements of the zoning ordinance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision. based on a finding that
the application raises driveway issues that cause violations of the zoning
ordinance.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval with the condition listed in Alternative 1. The
subdivision ordinance specifics that subdivisions are required to comply with the
zoning regulations. Without the driveway modifications mentioned in this report.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/03
this subdivision would fail that test. Apart from this issue. the suhdivision meets
all other requirements of the City's zoning regulations.
.
D. SUllllortioe Data
Site plan
.
.
2
/
~ I
1 I I
/
"-
-II
-~ I / ;';
I I I
/
I
i I / I
I "0 J /
/
/ '0 I
i / I
/ I /
/ .
;
Ii ~ I /
I II I
! I /
/ .
~
Ii
::J .!11
-,
I I' ~
/
/
/
'0 I
I
I '0 ~
Q
""-.....
'",,-
" ""-
"",,-
,
'''''-,
'",,-
.....
~ ~ .....
:;
~
r-: ,....
..,
~" :. ...
~
""-,
"~
~ '~
"
~ "
.,..... '~ ~',{l
"~I'... '~Q'"
...~, '
~,
0)
'.....
.....""-
"
"
~
!."'""ttt..... lJ\ __...."
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 10/07/03
.
6.
Continued Puhlic Hcarin : Consideration or a rc nest to amend the zonin
ordinance by roYidino for self-sen'icl' car washes in the CCO zonin
district. Annlic.mt: Bro<ldwa\' Kwik Ston. (NAC)
A. Reference and Back2round.
Attached is an amendmeDl to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish self-
servicc car wash facilities as Conditional Uses in thc CCD zoning district. Since
the CCD Was established with thc iDlent of encouraging pedestrian-orieDled
commercial and residential mixed Uses, automobile oriented uses were
iDlelllionally omitted from the district. The applicaDl in this ease operates an
existing motor fuel/eonvenience store faeility. and is secking to add a car wash to
thc site. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider whether the
use is a reasonable expansion of the permitted uses in the downtown area. It is
stafrs inteDl that the ordinance. if adoptcd. would he designed to mitigate the
automobile-orieDlcd nature of the use. although that objective is obviously not
entirely possible with a motor fuel station. A separatc repon is provided which
addresscs some of the specific impacts of the proposed site plan if this ordinance
is adopted,
B. Alternative Actions,
-
Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish car \\lashes as a
Conditional Use in the CCD zoning district
-
L Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance. based on a finding that
the use could be developed to be consistent with the intent of the CCD and
the Downtown Revitalization Guide (the Comprehensive Plan chapter for
the downtown).
2. Motion to recommend dcnial of the amendment. hased on a finding that
the lIse is inconsistent with the applicable planning and zoning objectives
for the downtovv'n area.
1:.. Staff Recommendation.
StatT does not otTer a specific recommendation with this item. The expansion of
the zoning district to add this use would nOl appear to be consistent with the
original intent of the district. howel'er. adding the Use would he a policy question
for City o Eli cial s. If the amendment is adopted. a separate review of the site plan
proposal for the site is provided based on the draft ordinance.
D. SunnOrtin2 Data
Draft ordinance amendment
.
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 14B-5 OF THE MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR SELF-SERVICE CAR WASHES AS A
CONDITONAL USE IN THE "CCD" - CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
The City Council of the City of Little Canada hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Chapter 14B-5 is hereby amended by adding the following:
[KJ Self Service Car Wash, provided that:
1. 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.
~
~
4. Lighting on the site is consistent with the City's themed
lighting style, whether freestanding or wall-mounted.
5. Signage meets the requirements of the CCD 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 wash customers
is provided that avoids interference with 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 from
washed vehicles prior to exiting the site to the public
street.
10. All other applicable requirements of the City's Zoning
Ordinance are considered and met.
0A
section 2.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and publication.
Bruce Thielen, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk
AYES:
NAYS:
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/03
.
1-
Continued Puhlic Hearin : Consideration of a ree uest for a Conditiomll Use
Permit for a C~lr w~lsh in the CCI> District and a yariance-to huffenard
reauirements. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. Rcfl'rence and B~lck!!r'ound.
At the previous Planning Commission meeting. the Commission considered a
Conditional Use Permit for the Broadway K v,-ik Stop to add a self..sen-ice car
wash to its facility at the corner of Locust and Broadway. However. it was
discovered that the Zoning Ordinance did not have an allowance for this use in the
CCO zoning district. Action was tabled to permit the consideration of an
amendment would allow the use. That amendment is being re\-iewed as a
separate agenda item at the October meeting.
If the Planning Commission adopts the ordinance as prepared by stan: the
proposal for a CUP by the applicant may be approved. with the condition that the
OAT reviews the architectural and signage design clements of the project. The
site plan appears to fit reasonably v...eI/, with the condition that the curb cut
dimension along Locust Street be narrowed as much as possible (subject to the
recommendation of the City Engineer).
.
One of the primary issues with the existing facility involves the lighting of the
site. As a part of the Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit requests.
the City should include a requirement that existing lighting on the site, including
canopy lighting. be brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance. This
condition would require that lighting fixtures be installed (or changed) to ensure
that the filament source of the light is not visible from the public right of way or
adjoining property. The standard suggests that lighting sources are hooded or
recessed to cast light only on the subject site, and not on adjacent land. This non~
conforming condition should be corrected as a part of the current applications.
The second action involves a variance to the bufferyard setback from the south
property line. An existing single family residential use occupies the adjoining
property. requiring a bufTeryard of 30 feet of landscaped yard and a 40 foot
building setback. The applicant is proposing a minimal setback. however. the
vacuum station is screened from the residential side by the building.
The City has been relatively liberal with the bufteryard requirement in the CCO.
since the intent of the district is to encourage a mix of commercial and residential
uses. Planning staff believes that with intensified landscaping along the
boundary. and the proposed layout of the site. a \'ariancc can be justified to the
buffel}ard regulations.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision J: Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash in a CCO zoning district.
Planning Commission Agenda - \ 0/07/03
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the CUP. based on a finding that the car
wash meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance amendment
establishing car washes as a Conditional Use in the CCD. subject to
architectural and design review by the Design Advisory Team.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP. based on a finding that the
proposed project does not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Decision 2: Variance from the Bufferyard requirements.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the variance. based on a finding that a
hardship exists in putting the property 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 justified.
The Design Advisory Team will be meeting prior to the Planning Commission
meeting so a recommendation from OAT should be available at the Planning
Commission meeting.
c.
Staff Recommendation.
.
If the City adopts the ordinance amendment as proposed. planning staff believes
that the proposed CUP and variance are in keeping with the intent of the CCD
District. There are three primary conditions to this recommendation:
I. Architectural/Design review by the OAT.
2. Narrowing of the curb cut opening to the extent possible. upon the review
and recommendation of the City Engineer.
3. Intensification of landscaping along the south boundary of the site.
D. Supportine Data
Sign plan
Elevations
Site plan
Landscape plan
2
1-.--..-=-=- '. un. - -- - -. ~~, : ~1P - . - ~~- , --I
j / ;>;:-~---~-~-=- . .. .. ~I/ -~..--
/ ,I' ,---- I / - .___ .,_~_ . .'._} /____ \"
\/1 (( ((- ( !- ) : f I ! i (r ); ((- ( ( I ) )'V'\ \ '1/1(: liiP
\ \ \ ---, \ .--- / I I U' -----.I ---, .J , C':'J1!!;
'. .. -----J _./' '--- . ____________ - .---1 -._____/ r
.,.</ ,.
--~~--,/ ,~
'/
-~.~~ ~
~ij
il
I
.
--."-
~..........._--
f[:; ro.7.!z. ,(7~I'.f.V7<r;li'1
~:.U I .:;,,;,2..J' ~ \:.f\:Jt2.. ~
~~~(J"7!>//0.-" (c21 /L/'?7J,:' D)
,- "'. ! ,,( Y'/ ,- /fl.-' .[1" ''d.j ( , //, ~
~ l.,~' '" /',' r' .............. _"/ J ~......,_' <..,
---------'""---. 4-.-""___ _........._, .............--- ~--.....- ~
QJ[FGO@,~@@;@
~ (l ~ 101
Uo UC1~)~ I
o c;l (7') 01 I
UoU8J~1
I I
'/
I
.
iUJ cru O@;@@@@
I fPOQJJ~
I r
/'1 ;'
l]&~w~rn [L~Q]rg
II ~UoomV UQ]@[fiJ
i I U3~millJrnw rnmEJw0
' I
I I
! I
i I
~~
: I
@9
fJP
J
I
II I
I I
I
, ~
I ~p
:
I
-I i
i
I
I
I ~
I
~@ ~@D[f[JO
(jl'~ 17, c\ ~=
t'.,.. '--'i)': '0:;.,
JLS C'V'&'D If...! 0
jA:
. ::I:
lI)
e
0
u
~
l-
ll)
~
C'd'}
< ~
u
~ 0
-1
00
W
~~ ~ >
~
-< <:
V a::
U 0
u
::s
1; :z;
co
Cl ...... 0
:z I :.c: -
Z Cl (..) Eo-
3: ::::; 0 -<
tj <: -1
CD >
:z ...... w R:l
a:: ::::; > ...J
0 ~ i=
U U <{ gg
~ < a::
OJ 0 foo
I- Z ~ Z
< ~ 0
. a:: 0 0
0 a:: tt: =
u ro a.
~ ::l
~ [IJ
a:: I-
<:
CJ I
t;.;l
-1
~
~
<
~
~ ,
00
~
.
o
;z:
.......
o
u
u
::;.
l-
ll)
=
1D
~ I
'-
I
II -
:t:
(/)
Z
u:::
0
u
u
=..
I-
VJ
- II
I -I
- II
Tf ::.::
u
0
~
lD
W
>
~
<(
e:::
0
::1
0
.......
W l..1...
~ =..
:z lD Z
e::: - I I- 0
0 I I
u 13 .....
w E--o
~ -<
t- >
< ~
a:::
0 I .....1
u r:g
w
0 fl' ~
<
~
::.:: ~
u
0
~
CD
W
>
~
<(
e:::
0
~
0 - I
~ -~
lD
l-
I
s.2
...J
I-
T-
m
~
I.L..
0
U
U
=..
l-
V'!
:t
I- I
Ij/ I -
.1
.
.
.
1D
.
:>C:
U
W 0 :>C:
<-, ....J U
Z CD 0
a::: w ....J
0 > CD
U ~ w
W <C ~
> a::: I-
~ 0 <:
<: C:3 0,:
0::: 0 I
0 a u
f3 t...... l.i.J (/)
Cl Z
ll.... G:
0 => t......
. CD t...... 0
=> :z;
l- ce U
-,- 0 u
G I- :::I
:::c - I-
...J <.:> r- (/)
::J < z
DO > 0
/lQ -
::I: D ~ r-
(/) <
z j;lQ >
G: E-o l&l
0 DODD ~ ~ ....:l
u IX! u
u 0 j;Q
=> ....:l .....J
I- ID f-o
(/) w :r:
DO D :=2: 0
I- ......
-< Cll:
0::::
0
<...)
w
a
t......
u...
::)
CD
.
16
~I
.0,S
.o.~
p
.
i !
'0 i I ~
'S!! ..
I ..
~
is
.o,z
'$"
,
, - ,g
"''':',i
O ~ :0
:-..~.:! g
- , ...
.
0'
~
i
~
g ,
IIIl _
~ b
~ '0', ~
~ .' ~
s " _!r
... ... <;
'0.
~
~
III
.9,6
~.z .O,L
tlJ&
.
.o,\:
1D
.1
LOCUST STREET
-- ._u_~. ...-."' ..~._-,- .~--,.~._~ --~--_._~~-'-_.,.___..............._............_,__,.. _'._~-..........-_~~~~__,._ ~_"",._~,_~_~,._ ..'_."a~,~.__~..............,~__~.,~ '_~_'_"_''''''''''''-'-
_~~_'_.
_CURB_ CUT__n_~_______~._~__ (,U~B
~ t r-~ Q~\ ~~ -~ (0-;---;--; ~
\c5 \.\ ~ L L""IlSG"pe: 1<2'" ~ ')
-----------.--..~ 't ('
.-.....-.--.-.---_.. \ eGo ,p
,\ t-p ;J'
~ ..r....... V'
c::'" 0 0
...., -..,
d ..
LV"I
~',---,~---- ,-~-
-<:----
---,._~..- ~-- ,~--- ~..._, -_."~--~~~.."...~ --," ._~~.,'~.. '.r~'__........._.~...__.,_....._
rl
)>
~I
,,:
)>
"0
rn
~ (;'0
(11 - )
;0 S ,.
:c ('I
,.., ,. I'
;p
c:?
..,...
,..... !)
:P
Z
0
~
-<.
'-
~
~
~
J
G
z
"
;xl
rr1
-I
rr1
o
c
:P
,;1;l
rr\
)>
1- --..-..'----;
I
I
o
o
,..,
r.
o
?O
~I
I
~.
~Z
-0
z
~
;:'
x:
17
~
,.
"l)
'"
N
('"'\
J::>
;0
~ Z
0 :3 )>
l"\
~ fTl <./'l
". \' J:
.... :::c
"
:;0
0
0
g,
lJI
r ---...-_~__
~ II
I q/
---"~r' '--l--~' ---,,-
i I $1
I~ Z
I )0 D:
t r -,
I ';>t ",
l !:E 3~.
I,.
'....
L_L
--r ,-
0
~
-;:p -"
r c;
~ ~ 5
7:
"
-<.
SIt)Ew~U(
CP
- - ~ - - -.
-.J
III
CP X rn
c: ~ ><
- 0
.- ~ d rtl
C7 Z 3
0
Z G) 'Z
(j) C')
G"'
~D
I VA'. J :p ~ 't..:.J
o c:}~ 0
Vt :x:
r IT1
;p ~
CD ......
C1
o
o
C")
:::;Q
,...,
2
o
:P
;0
...,
'7
0)
0~
.!
(,
~I
--
o ~
..
..
O~
10
n ~
,
.i
,
, .i
, SlAND
-....J
OJ
"V
:1J
0 en
v \.0
0 -
t;/) l7
m m
\:7 a:
J> 0
n ~
)>
:JJ
~
if)
:c.
.
.
.
Planning COlllmission Agenda - ] 0/07/03
9.
Consideration of allowin~ property owner onportunity to sunply parkin!! at a rate
which is 60'Y.. of the shmdard requirement. (.10)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A proposal has been presented to the City for development of a 16.956 square f()()t office
building to be located along the West side of Walnut Street directly south of West Third
Street. The developer is the firm of James and Gruber. This building would include the
existing professional building at the south end. The balance of the building \\'Oldd extend
approximately 140 feet to the corner.
The project calls for 18 head-in parking stalls along \Valnut Street along with
development of38 interior stalls. The zero building setback on Walnut is consistent with
the redevelopment plan. llowever. the DA T will need to look at the building design and
sign plan prior to issuance of the building permit.
Planning Commission is asked to consider allowing a reduction in the standard parking
rate as follows:
T ota] parking demand created by the site if standing alone:
Total parking required if property owner allows use for public parking:
79 Stalls
48 Stalls
Parking provided in the main parking lot: 38 Stalls
Total new head-in parking stalls provided on Walnut Street 18 Stalls
(Developer pays into fund for 10 of the stalls with the City constructing these stalls)
Total new parking created:
Percent of standard:
56 Stalls
70%
In addition. AI Larson. adjoining property owner to the west. has indicated that he
supports the project and parking supply plan including joint parkinglzero lot line
proposed. and will grant a cross easement allowing use of his property for public parking.
He has noted that he will be working with James and Gruber on a follow-up application
for a Conditional Use Permit formally allowing this joint parking arrangement. It is my
understanding that the property owners on this block may also be submitting a joint sign
plan for the area to be processed via the PUO process. The CUP allowing a planned unit
development will be reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting.
Additional on-street parallel parking is available across the street on Walnut and a
Municipal parking lot is available kitty corner from the site.
In summary. under the parking scenario above. the project generates 79 parking stall
Planning Commission Agenda - 10107!O3
.
demand using stand alone standards. The ordinance allows a reduction to 60% to this
standard which amounts to 48 stalls, On street and off street parking resulting from the
developmcnt will amount to 56 stalls. or 70% of the standard. The facility \\'ill have
doors on Walnut so the Walnut Street parking is likely to be convenient to patrons.
Additional public parking is available in the area as well.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to allow a reduction in the standard parking stall requirement to 60% of
the standard. contingent on the developer providing cross eascment parking to the
public along with dcveloper paying to thc CCD parking fund for the 10 stalls short
of the 60% standard. Developer also to obtain signature from adjoining property
owner on an application for a planned unit developmcnt allowing parking lots to
merge from a function and use standpoint.
2. Motion to deny allowance of the reduction in parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The plan presented follows the redevelopment plan perfectly. The vision of Walnut
Street as the new "Main Street" is supported well by this plan. In addition. the plan .
shows maximization of building area made possible by a cooperative private/city parking
plan. This cooperative parking arrangement proposed moves the city in the desired
direction of increasing the ratio of building to parking area at a location \\'hcrc there has
been traditionally an over supply of parking.
Subsequent to Planning Commission and City Council approval. the developer will be
presenting a request for a Conditional Use Permit allov.'ing a commercial planned unit
development that is intended to formalize the approval of the joint parking arrangement.
It is expected that James and Gruber. Ace Hardware. and perhaps Harris Auto will be
jointly applying for the PUD.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of site plan.
City ordinance regarding parking
Letter from Al Larson
2
.
8"~1. 'oil NV'4 (f NOI.L::>nY.LSNO::>/ NVclXiI il1NO~ :,rl::l 9911.. -a9a(Oac)
;9C-IS~ 10~€} :XV=l Oij3gnij~ ~ :SNotSl^3l:I NN 'o(fao!7 UON '1aaJ1S 1nu/PM llC I- -
-6"-IS~ 10lC} :sng 3VS 'All NMVlla VZV7d ~f1N7VM LU
S NV'4 'onOl:::> '1S ~ -
(T31vaJ to-IO-OI :31 va
IN3^ V 03SS0 Ol/ V / - '1/3\1mN \lor :O.L NOJ.L VA ON3C1 .:y NOJ.LJaaV
~s
j'
~ $I .~ .<fit ..'1;, .-"%../P 0
I f1 .. ,~~~ - ." -,., $ ~T ~' ."Jli)" ...'
!. ., .~
! ....;.. ;"';';';':~;N41'::::::::::~ ~6l6 ~';:::::::::;'::{i' ~~:.>:->. .<:::::~'~~'.::::::::::~ :;.:~:::::::~, ,,'. "
Il J' .. .............. ..... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ""'-""'LL'. ~~
r " .......... ..... -".: . '.,- '.' ......... .. . .....~ "'f,' . ,,,v"~t....:/~ '7' o:J ~.
". ....................... .. ". . ',-, I'",\Y ................. .....................~p<,>~. .~ ....~-~.../.'.'~t i . .
". I ..............ZN..... .......j.:...... ".-. "'~c:' "'.1'-:.1-- J '-J-'J}-::'" -J'J, 'I- '<.' . ....n ~.
1,\...... .. . . . ....... h'-' 'w' "f' "1,) "('.' i" A' r'"' '.,.", . ....: ~
' ~:';';';:::'..;::.;::::::::::: :~~,~ ~ .. '. ..... .+::-:~ ''-':''''1' 3" '"~,,',, o' 8' S r~:. . e~ . ""." .:. ,. '1t?>::::::: >. ~.~~
.... ..'...:t/ n:--=-,..,:: .:0...:. -.. ~ "'." .'" .": :2~5 ........ __
~ ~Q --. ~~ #- '1,' ---------=.' J::::t;:. ." . -:1:::.- ~. "---. '. - ~...x -,~ - ...,?,q w ;';"
. . 4: ~ ~:lO. J.N 0Hv1 ---"'=-- .. . _ ,." <P
g . ,'.'. ," .'.r;-,.., ""'.', {)f)-', _.".. ,'." ~
:.', '.:' - - '--.' "
l.() ,:.:.: ':'--'. r',:-. ~/~:,:
......~.,.:' ,':''Ii',V
'-''-:'''':':-' . >..
t~' .'P.~.,.
~,+-' - 1C6____ 'I~~. r /
t;.~ - ------- .". ": . l~F; /
"':":'." --... ..CD .......
:'~ ~::_:.:
~ ", ~.:.::<.. -- _...,',.:--r~
-------..~{'6 ~ 7
.---~~ ~b.:riJ,:'-:
~'~~~ r-2 ~V
' r,.'_.'... .'
~":"'
--...... .:.:; CDI'k;"
h ,'. ;:',' ---1<(:2 ~ k,.. Ia1. :t:< \
:';h' .. ':', .~ I::__'~
1Y~ld-Il 'sJNIl J F-- ~ ~ ~ ,~.~ ' ','
0'r1lO ~Nll$"'J k+-c;.; (f) _ _ 0 '. : , ,~"'_ .,:'
r r+!U x 0"': "l '_",,; .'''' '_
r6---=::::::::::- . ':. _ ~;::! ~ ~ "I",: ,__ '. ...
-------~tz? ~ ~ ffi & ~ ~
. ----- f!== n. 2~1.>..;;.
~ ~~!l: 1.~CDrf.!S..".:
. ------.: .' ~ .'.'-
NxXx x xxn7 I:''''''' ~~-:;.'.' N
:>>.<<x ;tf2.~.~.>> ~
~ .;..... ~ ~...L~.,:..:'; ~"^"->~
. .' -,7;": ________ _ , ~j.'
------ : "., -,''j' '....." .: N': ~
;,::....:::.. "J'<.I.,._
~t1 p ;-:\~v
L-'~, ...'.: .. '", ,,,,,,'-.' '-c' '\
L I .'"::! J-! ~ .'....
..-.. '. A-." i)<tt ..-.....: n;~~ ./'\"~
,,-,};-:&~Z~ / ~ SC6 .'...... :'..i, ...j:jV
9'LI 9'LI" ",:", .J"""'"i
-L33C:l-LS
OC:l~
-LS3M
o
s --------..
]~!
2:~l
;1 s.-,
o
~<;z:: 3
(.) ell
Z "1
10
b -
~~~~z W
-I-I-I-It:) :"
;! ;! ;! ;! ~ ..
,VlVlVlVl:ll:: g
;-: t:) t:) t:) t:) ~ ell
iZZZZa. 0
i)52525O?i:~
crO:::o:::o:::~ 2';
<<<</j
a.a.a.a.~
~~~~e
/
<l
"-
<
..-
!.l.
....-
..
l-
LL
g
j
o
Qi
tf6
o
o
N
v
Vl
ffiVl"~
a.j~;!
...J<i=Vl
-,I-u
<Vl:Jt:)
: -,oz
1) -< ~ 50? .0-.11
"'~ ~ " '.' "'-
:; I=!l <L .:~>.>
~ a \0 -I ~ ' ~J"-;:~ .'. "', ;';;"'.
;~':;. r-LI
f")~E :.'."
L
w
z
o
Z
d
.
.
.
Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan are not
listed or appropriate. there shall be no building setbacks required. In such cases.
there shall be no parking allowed in th~ ar(:<!s bet\wen the front building line and
the public street.
[FJ
Site Improvements: All areas of a parcel \vithin the "CCO" district shall be subject
to the applicable recommendations of the Downtown RevitalizJtion Plan. Site
improvements shall be revie\ved for compliance by the Design Achisory Team
together with other design elements. including architecture and signage.
[GJ Parking:
I. Supply: Property owners shall comply with the parking supply
requirements as listed in Subdivision 3-5 [HJ of this ordinanc~. However.
property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required
parking supply under the following conditions:
a. Where the City finds that there ,,vi II be adeq uate opportuni ty to
provide public parking in vicinity of the subject property. and at
the City's option. the owner shall pay into a nCCO" Parking Fund
an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund
shall be used for the acquisition. constmction. and/or maintenance
of publicly-owned parking in the "CCD" district. (#535. 10/9/00)
b.
The City may. in addition to. or as an alternative roo the option
listed in Subdivision 148-6 [GJla. and at the discretion of the
City. the City' m.:1)' offer the property' O\\'I1er the opportunity to
choose to supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of
the requirement listed in Subdivision 3~5 [HJ. provided that the
owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use
over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility fo'r
maintenance of said parking area. (#355.10/9/00)
2. Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the fi'ont
building line of the principal building and the public street. except where
expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the
Planning Commission.
[H] Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction
in the "CCO" district:
I. Signs shall comply \vith the i\tlonticello Building Codes and Zoning
Ordinances relating to signs. including special allowances \\hich may be
made for the nCCO" district.
2.
All signs in the "ccon district shall receive review' and appro\'i.ll from the
Design Advisory Team.
~IONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
148/5
~B
.
To: Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello
from: Al Larson. Owner of Ace Hardware
Re: Request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing joint parking and sign plan via a Planned
Unit Development.
Date: October 3.1004
This is \\Titten to inform you that I support the request by James and Gruber to construct the
proposed 16.956 square foot office building and the associated parking plan. I understand that
the parking stall development proposal (including Walnut Street head in parking) will result in the
development providing 70% of the total parking supply. I also approve of the concept '01'
merging Ace Hardware with James and Gruber parking via the zero setback shown on the site
plan. Finally, I plan on joining James and Gruber and perhaps Harry's Auto in a rcquest for a
planned unit dcvelopmcnt that would allow zero lot line in the area of the parking lot. With this
request I will also grant cross easemcnts allowing general public use of the Ace Hardware parking
area.
If you should have any questions regarding my views on this important project. please call.
· LU:r~
\.j
.
q~
.
.
.
!.!h
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/03
Consideration of ~\mendments to the Cih"s Sien Ordinance addrcssine "Sandwich
Board" (Portable Siens) in the eel) Zonine District. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backeround.
At the request of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce. staff has prepared a draft
Zoning Ordinance amendment \\'hich would make an allowance for "'sandwich board"
portable signs within the City. According to the Chamber. several local businesses
presently use such signage in violation of present City signage allowances.
The attached amendment would make a special allowance for small portable signs (which
includes sandwich boards) within the City subject to the following requirements:
1. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD. Central Community Zoning
District.
2. The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5) feet of
the entryway of the business it serves.
3. The placement of the signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. If
on the public sidewalk. such signs shall be placed so that no less than six feet of
sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians.
4.
The signs shall display messages oriented to\vard pedestrians.
5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor include any lighted or moving
component.
6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it serves.
7. The signs shall be constructed of wood or other materials determined acceptable
by the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD
zoning district and shall not be composed of ..nuorescenC colors.
8. The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (5) feet in
height and six (6) square feet in area. and must comply with all other
regulations of this ordinance.
9. Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the City of
Monticello by the owner of the sign for any liability or claim made involving the
sign or sign location.
B. Alternative Actions.
1. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the sign ordinance
addressing "Sandwich Board" (Portable Signs) in the CCD Zoning District.
2. Motion to not call for a public hearing.
Planning Commission Agenda - ] 0/07/03
c.
Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends calling for the hearing. Many "downtown" areas permit these types of
signs, so long as they are limited in size and are focllsed on proYiding information to
pedestrians rather than motorists.
D. Supportine Data
I. Draft Ordinance
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3-9 OF THE MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE ADDRESSING PORTABLE (SANDWICH BOARD) SIGNS IN
THE "CCD" - CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNC:L or THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HER~BY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 3-9. (8).1 (permitted signs) is hereby amended to add the
following:
(i) Portable Signs (as defined in S'2ction 3-9.(8).2.(,,:,).i).
Such signs shall be subject to the following requirements:
1. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, central
Community Zoning District.
"
L.
The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk
area within five (5) feet of the entryway of the
business it serves.
3.
The placement of the signs shall not
or vehicle circulation. I f on the
such signs shall be place:.:i so that.
feet of sidewalk is available
pedestrians.
impede pedestrian
public sidewalk,
no less tha:l six
for passing of
4. The 5ig0s shall display messages oriented toward
pedestrians.
5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor
included any lighted or moving component.
6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours
of the business it serves.
7 .
The signs shall be constructed of wood or other
materials determined acceptable by the City. Color and
design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD
zoning district, and shall not be composed of
"fluorescent" colors.
8. The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than
five (5) feet in height and six (6) square feet in area,
and must comply with all other regulations of this
ordinance.
.
9. Any sign placed under this section shall infer an
indemnification of the City of Monticello by the owner of
the sign for an:l liabili ty or claim made involving the
sign or sign location.
Secti.on 2.
Section 3-9. (B) .2. (e).i (prohibited signs) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(e) Portable signs as defined in i. Below and other attention-
get t ing devices as defined in ii i. - v. below, except as
allowed in Section 3-9.(B).1.(i) and as provided for in
Subsection (C), Paragraph 4.
Secti.on 3.
This Ordinance shall be effective following its passage and .
publication.
ADOPTED this day of
the City Council of the City of Monticello.
2003 by
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Bruce Thielen, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk
.
2
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/03
Set date for open house workshop to discuss possible amendments to the
comorehensive plan re!!ardin~ sinele family to attached townhome unit ratios.