Planning Commission Agenda 11-03-2003
.
.
.
~
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 3,2003
6:00 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart and Dayid
Rietveld.
Brian Stumpf
JerfO'Neil1. Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
Council Liaison:
S ta ff:
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 7.2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for expansion of
drive through banking facility and other site improvements. Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank
Minnesota. N.A.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stage
planned unit development and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and
variance for parking. Applicant: Walnut Plaza Partnership.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for a variance from the requirements of the
zoning ordinance restricting signs from being placed in public right of way. Applicant:
Jeff Sell/West Metro Pontiac Buick GMC
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to zoning ordinance to allow sandwich
board signs in the right of way in the CCD (Central Community District).
9. Consideration of a request for a concept planned unit development approval for
residential and industrial uses. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC
10. Discussion of amendment to comprehensive plan for Block 52. Applicant: Steven
Johnson.
11. Review proposed yoga studio and determine if such activity at the level proposed
represents an expansion to the lawful non-conforming use. Location: Thielman property
(former Peterson Grimsmo Funeral Chapel)
12. Adjourn
DAWN WORD'FORMSI'LANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
.
.
.
To:
Planning Commission and DA T
From: Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City
Administrator/Community Developlnent Director
Date: October 31, 2003
RE: Planning Commission Items Relating to the
Redevelopment Plan.
In addition to reviewing the staff report, it is suggested
that Planning Commission members take some time to
review the Downtown Redevelopment Section of the
Comprehensive plan. I think you will find this review
helpful and very ilnportant as you analyze the Walnut
Plaza, Wells Fargo and Steve Johnson/Wallgreens
proj ects.
If you need a copy of the redevelopment plan prior to the
meeting, please call.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10107/03
MINlJTES
REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesda)' - October 7, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart and_David
Rietveld
Absent:
Staff:
Council Liaison Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. noting the
absence of Council Liaison Stumpf.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held September 2.
2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICl-IARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Rod Dragsten asked staff to explain the definition and procedures of preliminary and
development stage plats. This was added as item 12 on the agenda.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a 3 foot variance to the required setbacks for
residential driveways. Applicants: Leola Backstrom and Heidi & Wayne Bachler
City Planner Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising that the applicants are asking
to subdivide their existing two-family home into two salable parcels. Grittman stated the
primary issue raised by this request is the creation of a property line that runs through the
existing driveway. The zoning regulations for residential drivev.'ays require that a 3-foot
setback providing for drainage and landscaping be maintained. He further noted that
residential driveways are intended to have a maximum width at the street of 24 feet and the
current driveway violates this standard. Grittman stated that one possible way to address this
would be to cut out part of the existing driveway. O'Neill then advised that there actually is
somewhat of a separation already. It was further noted that staff had discussed potential
building code issues when creating lot lines such as fire walls. building separation. separate
utilities coming into the home for a 2-family unit.
Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the request. with conditions. One
alternative for the applicant would be to create a condominium. by leaving the parcel in place
Planning Commission Minutes - 10'07/03
but allowing for separate ownership with each owner owning the lot in common. allowing .
for separate sales. Staff would be in support of this. although they are somewhat concerned
with the applicant being able to meet the listed conditions.
Chair Frie asked the applicant ifhe understood that if the request was appro\'\~d. they would
need to be in compliance with dri\'eway standards and would need to condominimize the
parcel as well. tv1r. Bachler stated he understood this.
Grittman explained a condominium plat advising that the state adopted this as part of the
statutes several years ago. If the property becomes a common lot line it \Hmld have to follow
state building code laws. Building Official Patch stated it comes down to cost. in most cases
when a :2 family dwelling becomes single family. many items need to be remedied to meet
code. Mrs. Bachler stated the utilities are separate but there is no fire \\all. It was further
noted that if the applicant pursues the condominium they would not have a lot line scparation
and therefore would not need to change the driveway.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Applicant Wayne Bachler. 311 Minnesota St. stated he
was a little surprised by this suggestion of a condominium but that they would abide by this.
Frie asked Mr. Bachler if he was aware of the fact that he would no longer need to remove the
necessary section of the driveway. which is an asset. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was then closed.
Dragsten stated if this \\ere to be approved. it should be approved to make the lot line adjust
to be split and if the applicant is not able to accomplish this due to costs. then the .
condominium route should be pursued. Carlson also stated that with the existing driveway .
they could not accomplish the 6 ft driveway separation requirement as the existing shrubbery
would be in front of their garage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION. BASED ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE: AND BASED ON COSTS. THE APPLICANT
WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPTION TO CONDOMINIMIZE. DAVE RIETVELD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing car washes
bv conditional use permit in the central communitv district. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik Stop.
LLC
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the report and noted that the purpose of the
ordinance amendment was to establish the potential of having a drive-through car wash in
the central community district. Originally this district was established to encourage a
pedestrian oriented downtown and when the boundaries wcre drawn. they included this
facility. There is a list of conditions that are designed to ensure that any use such as this
one meets the intent of the CCD. and designed to fit in with the downtown area.
Planning staff does not have a recommendation. although Grittman advised that with the
following agenda item. this ordinance amendment would need to be appro\'ed. .
2
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 10107/03
.
O'Neill added that the Design Advisory Team revie\\'ed this item earlier. and although
they had some concerns they did recommend approval with the conditions listed in this
staff report. and included the condition to require that the door he closed on the canvash
during drying to keep the noise do\\'n. in consideration of the residential neighhorhood
and outdoor dining across the street. This was the only specific added to the conditions.
although there are other standards in the district that would need to be addressed. O'Neill
clarified that this item is separate from the next item which is a request tl.)r a CUP. Frie
wanted to make sure the Planning Commission had all conditions listed prior to making a
recommendation. O'Neill stated there \vere no others related to the ordinance
amendment and that this is for the o\'erall district and not specitic to this request.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Lawrence Clausen, property owner abutting the
applicant's property to the west. asked about the 2 foot retaining wall between the
residence and the business. Holthaus stated this is to maintain the drop in elevation that
is already in place. with the residence to the south. which has a retaining wall already in
place. Clausen felt that vehicle headlights when entering the car wash would shine
directly into his residence and is therefore requesting a 6 ft. high retaining wall. Holthaus
noted that they have agreed to do this. He stated that the retaining wall is actually going
to be on the south side and a fence could be erected on the west side. or the side between
the Clausen residence and the car wash. Chair clarified that there would be no retaining
wall on the west side. Mr. Clausen requested a maintenance free fence and stating again
that it would need to be a minimum of 6 ft. in height. He further stated a concern with
the grade as currently water pools into his yard. Holthaus stated this would be a parking
lot with curb and gutter, which was installed by the city. sloped by the car wash. and
running south and east. Clausen also had a concern with possible glare from the light
poles and it \vas advised that this would be addressed with the CUP request.
Susie Wojchouski. OAT representative, advised that they had just had an extensive
discussion on this item and the concerns had already been addressed by O'Neill. They
are also working on sign issues. They did not discuss the 6 ft. fence to the west but she
did not feel that would be an issue. Susie also noted that OAT had a similar concern with
light glare and she is confident that the applicant will address this.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding the current
curb cut on Broadway; it was noted that cars \vill be entering from the side street.
Holthaus stated there was one pole light in the SE corner of the lot which he discussed
with DA T and he does not see a reason that this would need to stay after the car \\'ash
was constructed. He advised that the landscaped area will be raised. and beyond that is
outdoor storage which would be carried through at about a 5 ft. height. Patch then
provided a drawing to further explain the storage arc a and elevations, retaining wall.
landscaping. and signage. Dragsten asked if this site plan was consistent with the
proposed ordinance amendment and Grittman stated that they do believe this will meet
the requirements. He further stated that with the CUP request there are several nwre
conditions that they would request.
.
Hilgart asked O'Neill for the boundaries of the CCD and O'Neill advised. Frie stated
perhaps staff could provide a boundary map of the CCD at the next meeting for future
reference. Hilgart further stated he wanted to see the boundaries to determine if a
...
.)
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
property owner next to this site would also be allowed to have a carwash. It was noted
that other property in this district would not be large enough to accommodate this, Frie .
added that if there is a concern by staff feeling this may not be consistent with the
original intent of the district. staff should revie\\' further and bring back for discussion. It
was advised that staff had reviewed the site plan and Frie asked if the applicant was
aware of the list of conditions noted and he advised that he was. Frie then asked the
applicant if he felt the concerns discussed with the OAT had been resolved and he stated
he felt they had been. although there are still a few items that need to be worked out. It
was advised that this would not need to be addressed prior to action on this item. O'Neill
further advised that there would be a variance required for the buffering between the
uses. but traditionally they have allowed buffer yard \'ariances in this district as there is
not sufticient room in this district.
Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish car washes as a Conditional Use
in the CCD zoning district.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PLANNING AND ZONING OBJECTIVES
FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION FAILED 3 TO 2 WITH FRIE. CARLSON AND DRAGSTEN OPPOSING.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. BASED ON A FINDING THAT TliE USE COULD BE
DEVELOPED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CCD AND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER OF THE DOWNTO\VN REVIT AUZA TION
PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2
WITH LLOYD HILGART AND DA VE RIETVELD OPPOSING.
.
7. Continued public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit allowin!! a
carwash in the central communi tv district. and a request for a variance to the buffervard
requirements. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik StoP. LLC
Steve Grittman provided the report and advised that the CUP would be to accommodate
the car wash. presuming that the City Council follows the Planning Commission
recommendation and adopts the ordinance. He noted there are 2 zoning requests. one for
a CUP and the other for a variance to the buffer yard. He stated the city' s approach to the
buffer yard requirements has been to accommodate an easy mix of residential and
commercial uses. and secondly the reality that buffer yards don't physically fit on most
downtown sites. Staff had several recommendations including additional. more intense
landscaping. Grittman advised that landscaping was shown on the applicant's site plan.
however staff is asking for it to be more intense. The setbacks also appear to work with
the site. There was discussion regarding fencing along the \vest side and the OATis also
discussing the possibility that one be added to the south side as well. Grittman stated the
proposal fits well for this site and most areas of activity will be screened by the building
itself. Circulation/stacking should be accomplished without interference with the
convenience store traffic without conflicts. Grittman stated staff also recommended
architectural design review by OAT as well as a site plan recommendation to narrow the
.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 10'07/03
.
curb cut spacing as mllch as possible because of exiting traffic and canopy area. It is
staff s recommendation to \\ork \\"ith the City Engineer and stan-to narrow the curb cuts
as much as possible to get as much landscape and island as possible on this site. StatT is
recommending approval of both requests.
(YNeill added that DA T appn)\"cd the conditions with the addition to condition 3 stating
there was discussion on lighting the canopy and the applicant \vas willing to modify the
fixtures to not impose on the neighborhood. The applicant also volunteered to remo\'e
the existing pole. which is a sccurity light that (an be removed without sacrificing
security. Also. buffer yard requirements to include the requirement of a 6 ft. fcnce and
additional. intensified landscaping. Lastly. regarding the proposed sign. there appears to
be a conflict with the size and \\'hat is allO\ved by ordinance in the eCD. It was advised
that there had been considerable discussion and they were getting closer to an agreement.
and it was asked that the Planning Commission let the OAT work on this.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Susie \Vojchouski. DA T representative. stated they
did not have adequate time to review the signage completely and although there wcre
some concerns. they were pleased that it will be a monument style sign. She also stated
that K wik Stop is part of a corporation and would also need to abide by those sign
standards. Frie advised that Crostini's GrilI had approached him regarding the lighting as
well. but it looks like this is being addressed. Frie asked if he was comfortable with the
resolving of the sign issue by DAT and staff. and Holthaus added that this was their
anticipation as well.
Dragsten asked about the hours of operation and also \vhat would be done with the
existing building. Holthaus stated it is intended to be remodeled in the future. but they
did not want it to interfere with the operation of the store as it would be complicated.
although they do intend to remodel so that it would be similar to the car wash and he felt
this would be several years down the line. They \vilI continue with the current hours of
4:30 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.. 10:30 p.m. in the winter.
Carlson asked that staff take into consideration the fact that the Chamber currently has an
internally lit sign. located in the CCD. and stated this could be a cost issue for the
applicant. There was further discussion on the placement of the retaining wall and it was
noted that the resident to the south was more in fa\Of of the landscaping. Carlson did not
feci the fence would be more aestheticaIly pleasing and Holthaus and Grittman
concurred. further adding that landscaping could be intensified versus a fence. It was
noted that the proposed fence was in response to the neighbor's request and felt they
could further discuss this with her. Frie asked if perhaps this could be discussed with the
neighbor prior to the City Council meeting. and leaving it open to further discussion.
Frie asked if Holthaus was familiar \,,'ith the conditions noted in the staff report as \\eIl as
conditions stated by the OAT. Holthaus was concerned with the request to make the curb
cut narrower. stating that due to the placement of the canopy. there was not sufficient
room to narrow it and stiIl be able to circulate. further adding that was the reason they
wanted to close off access to Broadway.
.
O"NeiIl also stated that there will be some trees removed along the south edge of the
property at the beginning of the project. which they wiIl replace with landscaping.
5
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 10/07/03
Dccision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Car \\'ash in a CCD zoning district.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOl'v1MEND APPROVAL OF
THE CUP. BASED ON A FINDING Tl-IAT TI-IE CAR WASH MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING
CAR WASHES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE CCD. StJB.lECT TO
ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN REVIEW BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR'{ TEAM.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Carlson that the fence stop at the south side of the building
and to intensify the landscaping.
ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT TI-IE FENCE BE
STOPPED AT THE SOUTI-I SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND TilE LANDSCAPE BE
INTENSIFIED. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Dccision 2: Variance from the Bufferyard requirements.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE VARIANCE. BASED ON A FINDING THAT A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN PUTTING
THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER THE REGULATIONS. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
Chair Frie asked OAT representative Susie Wojchouski to keep the Planning Commission
updated at the November meeting. Wojchouski advised that the OAT had called for a special
meeting, prior to the City Council meeting, to address this and it was suggested that O'Neill
provide this information at the next Planning Commission meeting. Grittman also provided a
map showing the CCD boundaries. Frie asked if the CCD should be looked at for purpose
and intent. as well as consistency of the intent. O'Neill felt that reviewing the redevelopment
plan and comparing it to the code of the CCD could be done and if it was felt that the plan is
no longer in sink maybe it should be reviewed further. Frie stated that he would like to see
the DA T expand their duties beyond the CCD. noting the Hospital District's current
expansion, and that he felt the DA T should have more flexibility. Wojchouski advised that
the OAT v,'as formed with the Downtown Revitalization Plan which encompasses the CCD
and if the Council chose to expand this. DA T would need to comment.
8. Item removed from agenda.
9. Consideration of allowing propertv owner opportunitv to supplv parkin!! at a rate which
is 60% of the standard requirement.
Jeff O"Neill. Community Development Director. provided the staff report advising of a
proposal presented by .lames and Gruber for development of a 16. 956 sq. 1'1. office
building along the west side of Walnut Street. The Planning Commission is asked to
consider allowing a reduction in the standard parking rate. which would actually result in
70% of the standard requirement. exceeding the 60% standard. O'Neill provided a site
.
6
.
.
.liL
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
plan sho\\'ing the existing buildings and parking. as \yell as the proposed project. stating
th(' design matches what the city is looking at for redevelopment of this area. They are
proposing head in parking and the sidewalk is to remain. O'Neill further stated the
proposal is similar to the Towne Centre site also located in the CCD. He did note also
that Ace Hard\vare owner. Al Larson. had submitted a letter granting a cross easement for
parking.. O'Neill advised that a formal r('quest for a PUD will be submitted soon. but the
developer has asked that he be able to move forward in anticipation of attending the
November Planning Commission meeting.
Chair hie questioned if this might be setting a precedence for reducing parking on other
projects, however O'Neill ad\'ised that these requested arc addressed case by case. There
was further discussion on what types of businesses would bc located on this site and
O'Neill stated it appears to be single level office suites. some possibly with basements.
ho\\'e\'('r a tinal design has not been determined at this time. Frie didn't believe the intent
\\'as totally office suites, but he did not feel this would affect the parking supply. It \\'as
noted that the redevelopment plan encourages 2 story structures. Hilgart felt it would
make a difference in traftic and parking demand depending on what the nature of the
businesses arc. although Grittman stated that a mix of retail and office in the entire
district allows them to average out parking and felt this would be sufficient from a use
standpoint. There was further discussion on the intent of the redevelopment plan
encouraging two story buildings, as well as the need to look at parking needs as they felt
the lIses \\-oldd make a difference in the demand for parking. There was no further
discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE
PARKING REQUIREMENT TO 60% OF THE STANDARD. CONTINGENT ON THE
DEVELOPER PROVIDING CROSS EASEMENT PARKING TO THE PUBLIC.
ALONG WillI TilE DEVELOPER PA YING INTO THE CCD PARKING FUND.
DEVELOPER ALSO TO OBTAIN SIGNATURE FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNER ON AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWING PARKING LOTS TO MERGE FROM A FUNCTION AND USE
STANDPOINT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
Consideration of amendments to the citv' s sign ordinance addressing "Sandwich Board"
(Pot1able Signs) in the CCD Zoninl.! District.
Stc\"e Grittman advised of a request by the Chamber of Commerce for the city to amend
their sign ordinance to allow sandwich boards in the CCD zoning district. It was noted
that there are businesses that currently use such signage in violation of the city's
ordinance. Staff proposed a draft ordinance that vvould amend the city's permitted sign
ordinance, allow for these types of sandwich hoard signs during business hours that
\\-Otild not obstruct pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk and placed nearby entrances to the
businesses. and to identify specific commercial activities on the site nearby such as
restaurants with menus.
It was advised that the Chamber had submitted suggestions and information was
compiled from other cities that was incorporated into the proposed amendment. Fred
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
Patch stated that in thc CCD requirements it allows for non-illuminated temporary
signage, \\"hich is part of the plan document and specifically provides for these types of .
signs, long ago thought oC but not incorporated into the ordinance. Patch further stated
that presently these signs have been somewhat of a nuisance. They discussed seasonal
signs. however it was noted that the city requires the signs to be moved indoors and felt
that would he sufficient.
Wojchouski stated that the husinesses are willing to havc a quality product. noting that
they also know that some of the signs are in violation and they are willing to order quality
signs if the signs are going to be aIlO\\.able. She also noted that the Chamher polled the
downtown businesses and most were in favor. although many \".ould not have a use for
them. It was noted that the intent was to have one sign per business. although this was
omitted from the report.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING
"SANDWICH BOARD" (PORTABLE SIGNS) IN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
lL
Set date for open house/workshop to discuss possible amendments to the comprehensive
plan regarding single family to attached townhouse unit ratios.
Jeff O'Neill advised that staff currently has been following the 2 to I ratio, although they
have not adopted a formal policy or held an open hOllse. He also asked that they take into
consideration that they are short-staffed at this time and perhaps hold off on conducting
the open house until a further date. Chair Frie stated perhaps they could hold the "open
house" in .Ianuary to kick off the year. It was the consensus of staff and the Planning
Commission to hold the "open house" in January 2004.
.
12. Plat Definitions
Rod Dragsten asked staff to explain the difference between preliminary and development
stage plats. .Ie 1'1' O'Neill advised of the definitions. further adding that it has been staffs
position to encourage developers of ne\v subdivisions to submit a sketch plan for
Planning Commission's review prior to design and engineering work to be able to offer
feedback to the developers. O'Neill further stated they will no longer allow re-zoning.
concept stage and development stage approval to occur all at once as they need to make
sure Planning Commission and City Council are comfortable with zoning/land use prior
to design. and application forms have been revised so that this does not occur. Patch
further stated this supports the city's comprehensive plan.
Chair Fric then thanked Lori Kraemer for her work as the Planning Commission
secretary. noting this was her last meeting.
.
8
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
13. Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY DAVE
RIETVELD TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Recorder
9
...
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
5.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a reauest for the construction of a
drive-through bankina facility. Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backaround.
Wells Fargo Bank is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
expansion of its drive through banking facility and the construction of additional
parking on its parcel. The land occupied by the bank was recently expanded as
a part of the library location trade for the former Marquette Bank building.
Wells Fargo is seeking the approval of a site plan that includes a future building
addition and permanent parking lot design, as well as an interim project. The
interim project includes the expansion of the existing drive through area and a
temporary driveway along the west side of the existing building. Eventually, the
temporary driveway would be replaced by the building addition, and the applicant
would construct a parking lot along Walnut Street. Staff makes the following
comments on the site plan proposed by the applicant:
1. The location of the parking lot along Walnut Street would violate the City's
Comprehensive Plan direction to require a maximization of commercial
building frontage on this street.
.
2. The interim improvements appear to be consistent with the concept plan
previously reviewed by the City, and would not interfere with either the
building addition or the future circulation plan on the site.
3. The improvements for the parking lot on the former library site would
interfere with the long term objective to construct a commercial building
on that corner.
4. The City has designated land for a parking lot on the southwest corner of
this block, designed to retain the existing trees on the site, and to
permit the remainder of the block to be developed with buildings.
5. With regard to the drive through facility, the use and circulation appear to
meet the original concept plan, and should be able to facilitate the
future development of the site.
6. The drive through arrangement of the A TM location will require additional
review by the City Engineer to ensure that connections to 4th Street are
properly located, and the turning radius around the drive aisle can be
accommodated by passenger vehicles.
.
The City's parking lot was designed to accommodate both overflow parking from
the Town Center project and public parking to be used by the commercial
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
facilities on the Wells Fargo Block, including the expansion of the Wells Fargo e.
building. By approving the current plan, an excess of parking would be present
on this block, and the frontage along Walnut for this entire block length. This
would be directly counter to the direction of the Comprehensive Plan which calls
for maximizing the building frontage along Walnut, and efforts to screen parking
areas from Walnut Street exposure.
Moreover, as noted above, the parking lot as designed would preclude future
building in that location by placing storm sewer in the middle of the proposed
parking lot. When the City transferred this land to the bank, the City did not
abandon its planning objectives. Wells Fargo's original concept plan, reviewed
and approved by the City, showed a new commercial building at the corner of
Walnut and 4th Street, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. While the
land transfer did not require that the bank construct a new commercial building
within any particular timeframe, the City should not approve a plan that would
tend to defeat the planning objectives for this site and this block.
Staff believes that the better plan would be to leave the corner location vacant
until a commercial building is economically feasible. Parking demand can be
absorbed by the public parking lot on the corner adjacent to the railroad tracks
that would provide adequate parking for Wells Fargo, and overflow for the future
commercial and Town Center.
B.
Alternative Actions.
e
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a drive-through
banking facility.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the expansion as proposed, including
the interim improvements to the driveway, based on a finding that the
plan facilitates the expansion of the bank site.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the expansion of the drive through,
including the interim improvements to the driveway, but with the
condition that the northwest corner of the site is left unimproved until a
commercial building is proposed for the site, based on a finding that
drive through area along Highway 25 is reasonable use of the property,
but the Comprehensive Plan calls for maximizing building frontage
along Walnut Street.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a
finding that additional automobile oriented uses are inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
e
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends Alternative 2. The Comprehensive Plan calls for avoiding large
expanses of parking lot along Walnut Street. The concept plan prepared for the site
originally showed a commercial building at the former library comer. in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. When the land was transferred to the bank. it was understood
that the corner site did not need to developed immediately. however. the planning
objectives for this comer have not been abandoned - future commercial at this site is still
a part of the Comprehensive Plan. As such. approval of the plan presented by the
applicant would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. and should not be approved.
Alternative 2 provides for the bank's expansion while retaining consistency with the
Plan.
D. Supporting Data
Site Plan
Site Plan - Temporary
.
.
~-
II =1
;'I
:I
~. ~ V
. ~ ~
a I~ h..
I ~ ~ii ; H I
In ~;;.{
eo
r ~ ~!' ~
! ~'! HI1!
~ ~,tl1lJ: -J~nj~
I li't:-' "'i,"
i HiUll jli'ill
~~ . ~J~~m lw1m
~~ <!l -II .- .---:
11 'i,lu:! I~j'ttld
~. li~!~tJ~ lJ; III
'! '-'IJr~' ~-!";;~
H Ii; -~i1 I!,ah_
" i.-!!_I ~ !~i"
~- -nl' ~~.~-~i
,J h!:!-~h 'tDJ~:
l-~ ItIlU.. i"
j:j ~!~jli! l~i'l~i
a~ HIMf iI!JI!i
f.~ n~--~i lllGi
'H I' I~~ji l!;-!ifl
!tt ".....r t.._...
I" il!.!'._. '. th-~..rt
, !l 1--' i il.~' .-,
~~I ,~,:iil~ t 11!J~ii\
ir! '~J~:ii' I "ij~!~if
i ..il: ~ !i~...t ~ ijl' .::tA
.. ~l~ ~ :'hff' i mf~~,!
~ II! 1,1Ulltf I .;l!l--tt
5 ~ i . dlt. it ht!l1n
...
I
D
~
..
'I
~ il
B~
I Q'"
! ~I
! I,
h~
"
'"
''{/(.
I
j
/
'...
"',
.......",
""...
................
.............:...
................
................
................
""...
.............,
I
~s
~~
"j
!..
!!
9;
~ii
~
~
H
i
I
~
!
i
~
i; i It
~~ loo iii
~I'l t !':lis
Ii ~ 5;&
~~ ! :Il'
..i t: i lis
'1:'1'1 ~ 01 C
h i ~i~ ~
~~ .; ~~i ;
aS~ ! U~ . ~
in l ~~~
,
I
,
~
I
. I
I
I
............,
................
",
.............
I
..
Ai.
/
I
I
/
I
/
I
.'
'"
'II
.il
!i II
~
~ J
j!!l
It. II
,:;-
.-- .
'II"
i "
fHI
AVMllVl:J 3::1 VlNVS ONV MBHll:ION NOIONllijOa
1111 Ii 1111 11111 II 111/1111 11111/1 1111111111 III/II I 111111111111 1IIIIIIlIU II ItItml 1111 IJIUI:J/W/lIIJI/ I W/II/1/1111 till II 11/1 1111111 tII t1111H 1111/1/111
IV' '1"';)
,1':)ll'WOl3N"'~IHl
----..., "--'_"_,~_n~_._,_,_..---,-..l-._, -.-'-'-'-------_~__"".__~______,_, "",__ n.___.
/' H!'I'd i'/1ONI~!lg ')OU91l(::J
''''''''''''''''--_'",,"' ';;'(,1 1''''-
._-:...;.......-
I
I ~ .
~ .J jJ J. ~
I ~ on '\ Cl ..
. : ~ ~~ N
.8'il< 'i
po ,n !i ~ -I "
~~:1i~W~
~~ - \
",
/~~"""
pV ""',
II ~\ 1~'lZC 9 ~
r ~ ,\ \
j ;
~
it~
~~l
~~,;
w
~
p
c.
~
o.
:;t
~
8
~
K
N
lI.l
I
\1
II
I 'r
,.Ii
..
j
'"
?
\9
b'i
\
~~
I~
\
Jr""'" '....
"...
,~.
......'\.
-~.~:...., ~._---~ '~~,.~.
\..
091~C M .m.lO 6l1\C9 N
'"
r'
,~
~!
l.;llf
,~v
I.---~ ' I
.n ,,'.-
~~ :..
'l.w
'-~.... -
1~lj~~ :,
51ml\~
,.
II
~
()
\,
-"~",~:~..
00'9<1 a .1l:,lS &1 ~ll B
~
.'
~'I
..
~
~
'i
~
w
~6
8~2
~1,U
~~ ~
I'
.1~.I0 6.a\C9 B
ti .(\4
0000
;} ~~
~i ~ ~ rl
.... ~ ,.
:J c:i 'Y '0 r'
ot), I~
I '~,"ir1.
I' :/ () l"i
"~ 2 ~l ' ..
t- ; ,
f,. 'J Il! ~} .n
/'. '" ' .n I)
~"';1 ~ iii
t ~,~ ~ , ti
1~ d it' ~~. .' "I
~) '\' '" Ii ~ 11
"I" t., r
,
I ,/
,. /
i .'
,/,J
.1
1.1
on
'i
.
'"
,:'I
1
I
I
(
\
:,
IV
.I,
'j"
" 1,;
'1) lY
" ll.
HI.
ft
w
~
g
f.i
z
0"
~;tj,\'
_n'J
IIIIII1I1
_all
i~
~i
i~~ I
I~i Ii
"HI~ ~ ~
;III!I' Ii J, ·
II. i
.1!Ii 'J.i,
,.. - I I I I _I ,- ~ t. Il':' 1 J ~ I
iii! : I it ij!i::li;; ,: jl :\Ij i! I ,ffl I t I 1;'1 jii
'11- It f I "J t.'rl)I,11 .! II fill IJ I 'JI.lt I I f )11.t .,11
1 -II~ t 111(11) - fl t f I It J f I' f.r I
1'1. I. ~ Ij' illl,I,lll Ii il Illl Ii "- il I I 'I :I'i: .ii
.d,i' I~i!,: j. :lt~;!!lll'!lli ai/IIi ::1 ',Hi! 1/d IIH'ltI!1
I.f J I. I .1 111lifj,or II I it:', ( III e,f., ~ IJ I Ii ~ 'J~
tfif~ ! I~ . 'f '!j'UiIJ fl '! :Ial~ .I~. fj1i J III . ~~ftl hI
III Ii /, I I, 11..I:l1!1 II! 1,1 II' I f- I I'!' t f II i ,I'!' ",
I!m Ii l! i n H!Jil,dil il! li~ !iili Ih I im i ! il ! i~ii iill
- ..... "'.... ,......! = ~ ::!te ~t: d
~~~il
~ ~ t In
I
~ ~
~
I
C>
,'6-~
',t
.t(.~
~
~
19:- -)
,,~
......, \
~~ '<J
I~ \
( -~ ~ ,"
~. . ~ __ _ __ _ r_ _-...
--- ~ \'
~.
0'.
g ~ I
~o;1; :
La.:~cn I
" ~ ~ ,~~) :
~ ~.~~ I
I - ~ a I
',\ '-l J,1- '---",-- V ~----jl .
~ _"f:
I
I
I
I Q i: I
., r- I
.. i:f.
11!\i11l i~ lil~ i ~\i~
~I ~l !:
I~i fi
'~l!!IlIhll l~ i'!G I , .. I
I- i J I J
il i I f \',ltln i! ~i i, !i -II Iii l t I, Ii! ~~II
I. l I \- li!II'I:I: ,. I :\11 I:' ,I I i I I;', 1,1 <l
/
:i I; I I:l 1II'i!ll!1 .! II (Ill II: jilt I I (;Ili~ i1t c-;
.
t I~ .
I Ii, ~ I' !iilll!I\1 Ii .1 Ill, fl I' \'1 1 l t I :I!il !ii c:
~
'I I'! I.) !ljl!I;111 lit I. If' I! Iii II!, I I 't I I::fl I' CI
r.
I it 'I ' I' ,I~l:::!il i' l\ i,ltl il 'II I!II I f I! · Il'it II c
.l I i' 1,1111 1111' III It:11 I II "'" III n: II, i ~ I,
:1: I' l. i' '!illljl' fJfl, ll'i. ll. (Iii I I 11,1:\1\ III C'
(
_II 1i!1! Ii l!fl'lt !\'\ll!h!lt I' n!i ~ ! li i i~!: ~:l ~ .
(.
01; L'
illl Ii i! I II lli!III:111 II! If~ !\!II I,l I II~ I ~ il ! il:fl illl <> (,
oj .. -i 04 ~ ... .. ~ !! :' :! :! ! ~ ~ ~ :f 1
tJ R i 1
--- ---- ---- ---..---.- ---- t
AV^ll~~ 33 VINVS aN~ N~]Hl~nN Nal~NI1~na
..-tJ' I
I
------ '-------......~
~ ~
<>
~
~ -~-~--
- t: _~.,._ .-.__W.~
...............~........._,-_.. -.
- ~- "'----
-----------"""'=""'""-.
l!l
:t
o
z
n
-{
r-
o
C)
<.:
1/1
-I
1I
a t
)
~~-----....;;;:::
~-="-="= '~c
~
I
II z 0
>< 0
AI
l> .,
l/l :t
T ~
0 "
I 0 ~
0 0 ~
'" '" i -
.. . E
ii: 0
)> l
:2 :l:
)>
u
r
.
.-/
.,./
-
0'"
,.
"
U>
- t~t~~'~E'B
~ '~~f~i'j!;li
:u -- .- "';ilM,'
~'" II!
~ ~fiilil'
," ~ iii'"
..
<>
<>
d -~
i: f'"7
~ ....-0.
" 0 r-,
Z ("...
,...-0<:4
n '('"" /'
'(... ,T-r ~
, 1'.
? ..
cJd
'---~------.-
------..."""""-~'~----.........--....
.----.--,.~-.-~=-~7J
~---~-~.~
lltttlltlllUJUU~mlmllttlttl~tUUlllttlfl/UUIttIIUlltllJII'ttHIIt/HHtm"",W" .
"':t~
\.
Key Pedestrian Crossings
· All intersections allow for some measure of comfortable pedestrian
crossing, but several are key to pedestrian movement. Pedestrian
movement patterns anticipated by the plan suggests that crossings are
most likely and needed at:
.
Seventh Street and Pine Street
Fourth and Pine Street
Broadway and Pine Street
River Street and Pine Street
Walnut Street and Broadway
Walnut Street and River Street
.
.
.
.
.
In addition to highlighting these intersections for pedestrian crossings,
the intersections of Fourth Street/Pine Street and Walnut
Street/Broadway should be signalized to facilitate pedestrian (and
vehicle) movements across Pine Street.
Vehicle-oriented Streets
· Certain streets - Pine Street and Broadway (to some extent) - will
always be dominated by vehicles. In doing so, however, they do not
need to neglect the pedestrian. The improvements for Pine Street and
Broadway (outside of dOwntown) should concentrate on the addition
of elements that reflect the qualities and character of a small town.
Elements like pedestrian-scale street lights consistent street trees have
the added benefits of "calming" traffic; and by introducing elements
near the roadway, the perception of the space is diminished and people
tend to drive more slowly.
Pedestrian-oriented Streets
\. Some of downtown's streets should be oriented to pedestrians while
stilI accommodating vehicles. Walnut Street, River Street and
Broadway are the three most important pedestrian streets envisioned
() by the plan; they should be developed with features that related most
strongly to people on the sidewalk. These streets should have build-
ings that reach to the sidewalk (zero setback from the property bound-
ary at the front of the site), windows across a majority of the street
level facade, signs that can be read by pedestrians, awnings over store-
fronts, pedestrian-scale streetlights, and plantings to create interest at
points not dominated by buildings.
o
Cars are still a necessary part of a pedestrian-oriented street. On-street
parking - at the front doors of buildings on Walnut Street, River
Street and Broadway - should be utilized to create more life on the
street and to make the prospect of doing business in downtown
Monticello more convenient for customers of downtown businesses.
People might still move between destinations in their cars, but if the
street is designed with the needs of pedestrians in mind, they will just
as likely walk from one store to the next.
;L' .-
I
A New Bridge ,
Revn.1Jz:Jng MontJWIo'$ Downtown h11l1vtrlront .
Pllt ]..19
s
"'-'-.-.--..- ..-.....---..-.. ..-...---~..- --"-"--16.
st~
.
--~
..'_I
.....'.... ","'".' ,.,'..,.
. 1
.: --1._ I
'-,! <->/
I I
I I
I I
,
.... ....'_.
lI4'.,__
- .........
--
--
.
--.
-... .-..
/'P'f
Walnut Street UIIIlzes diagonal parkmg and an enhanC!d strtelsGIpe to 0'5\e a Il!W "main SIree\" for downtown.
Pine Street is a state highway and should be the main route for vehicles pass-
ing through Monticello. Although this street will always be oriented more to
cars that people, the development of some pedestrian facilities (walks, street
trees and pedestrian-scale streetlights) will help to keep traffic at speeds that
are appropriate for a downtown environment. The roadway itself will need to
meet standards set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, but
improvements outside of the curb can do a great deal to make this more a com-
munity street. Signage along Pine Street should be used to direct people to
Walnut Street and to parking areas located off the cross streets.
.....-
.-
t
4
4
.
.
.
<<
.
t
<<
<<
<<
i
I.
j
/,
I
;
~
................. .,.iIIof ......... ~LrfT..II'l!"......
J;' - -...=....--.........-.................-..--..
. of PIne StrM In oroo to crtiIle a stronger *1onshIp 10 other downtown snds.
. A New Bridge
. ~ Mt1IItkeIIo's 00Irnt0wn MId IlIr1etfront
''It 3:11
~...,...
r'
"'--.
i I J.
'~ I .~. I
, .' "t--'
, :~-+--,
I j l
......
, ,
.
C
.
<<
C
IS
The way that streets are developed will be an important factor in establishing
reasonable movement patterns in downtown. If we see a traffic problem in
Monticello today, we must know that we can never solve it. Solving the prob-
lem would entail more lanes, higher speeds and fewer conflict points (crossing
movements) along with more asphalt, fewer pedestrians and less local charac-
ter. The best we can do is manage traffic to fit Monticello, which involves
allowing for more crossing points, placement of signals to aid in vehicle and
t;pedestrian crossings of Pine Street and Broadway, striving for lower speeds ~
and encouraging other modes of mov ~
The key street is Walnut Street and in this plan it becomes a new "main stree ..
or ontlce 10. It lies at the heart 0 an expanded downtown - a downtown
reaching from the Mississippi River to Interstate 94. Many people already use
Walnut Street as a way of moving through town without having to deal with
Pine Street traffic. It parallels the main route through Monticello's downtown,
and is close enough for drivers on Pine Street to see development that might
occur there. It should be a pedestrian-oriented street, with on-street diagonal
parking, buildings close to the street, wide sidewalks, trees and pedestrian-
scale streetlights. Drive lanes should be limited to one in each direction, with
each lane being no more than 14 feet wide. It should be designed to encourage
traffic at speeds of 15 miles per hour, a speed that allows drivers to accommo-
date pedestrians crossing streets. At this speed, traffic will flow because the
vehicles have no stops between Seventh Street and Broadway.
t :..~ 'r ..:.".;....,- r_",. ~-
...........-..........._:--~-_............---'_.,.-'-
.
that downtown visitors will look for first, the aesthetics of the environ-
ment will encourage them to linger, to walk over to a nearby shop, or
to tell others about a place they enjoy.
Building and business owners must recognize the role they play in
these improvements.. 11ley can address issues related to the buildings,
creating interesting and viable spaces to walk past and into. Without
this, no degree of streetscaping can create a meaningful environment
for pedestrians.
. In this plan, Walnut Street, River Street and Broadway are the streets
that must maintain a strong edge - a street wall that is at least 75%
continuous.
. Breaks in the street wall that are occupied by parks, plazas or pedestri-
an pass-throughs should not be included when calculating streetwall
percentage.
Streetwall - 25% to 75%
.
. Even when parking occupies that portion of a site that meets the side-
walk, a sense of edge can still be achieved (although it will never be as
strong as what can be accomplished with buildings). In these cases, a
consistent and rather tightly-spaced row of trees with hedges or orna-
mental railings can create the streetwall. In no case, however, should
an entire block of downtown have less than 25% streetwall.
..
T raffle
!
v
Jt" ,."'
I
A New Bridge .
Rmt.IJlrbIg MontJ{l!Oo's Dow/IIDWIIllnd RJvrtfrofII .
Plllt 3;21
.5
.,~-:::...-::;-:.....,,~._...
The plan envisions eleven districts in downtown, each with varying targets for
use and character:
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
..
..
..
..
~
~
It
..
..
..
It
"
"
~
~
..
"
..
II)
..
..
..
..
.-
..
..
..
.
..
.
..
..
Riverfront
· Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multi-
family residential, offic~; upper level residential or office; two or three
story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on public areas surround-
ing buildings (rather than parking lots)
.
~,J Broadway: Downtown
· Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business ser-
vices, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment and office; upper
level residential or office; two story buildings; orientation to Broadway
Broadway: East and West
· Single family residential; strong emphasis on restoration of existing
older homes
, Walnut
· Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating
establishments and office; upper level residential or office; two story
buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street
Pine
· Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged; orienta-
tion to Pine Street
.
Seventh Street
· Larger scale retail and service, auto-oriented retail and service, drive-
through restaurants, lodging; orientation to Seventh Street
Transitional
· Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi-family resi-
dential and single family homes
Neighborhood
· Predominantly single family homes following existing neighborhood
patterns
Industrial
· Sunny Fresh operations only; transition to Civicnnstitutional, Walnut
or Transitional if Sunny Fresh ceases operation
Park and Open Space
· Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces
Civic/institutional
· Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), pub-
lic meeting spaces, community activity spaces, educational facilities,
churches, outdoor gathering spaces
,.I.
;L~
,
A New Bridge .
RevttaIJlIn(: MOfIti<<//o's Downtown;md RIvetfront .
Pilgt3:13
5
"
"
.
:.
,.
.
-.
"
..
,.
lit
-.
..
lit
lit
..
lit
..
-.
:.
..
..
..
..
lit
.
.
,.
-
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
..
Industrial
Park and Open Space
CiviclInstitutional
Setback:
20 feet for office use
related to industrial use;
50 feet for alI other
uses and Structures
does not apply
Build-to line;
25 feet
· Street fronta e "build-out" that ponion of the primary street frontage
which must be occupied by the primary structure at the build-to line or
which must have a portion of any building that meets the setback line)
is established for each district as follows:
Riverfront
Broadway - "Downtown"
Broadway "EA3t ~.8 ~'lT"ct"
CWalnut
Pine
S;~v"'nth .<;:tr~...t
Transitional
Neighborhood
Industrial
Park and Open Space
Ci viclInstitutional
75 percent
100 percent, except that pedestrian pas-
sages and plaza spaces developed in
concert with buildings are exempt
rim.; not aop~
60 ercent
20 percent
20 percent
does not apply
does not apply
does not apply
does not apply
40 percent
· Standards for minimum lot coverage by structures, in order to ensure
the best use of limited available land in downtown, are established as
folIows (plazas, outdoor gathering or sales area are not included in
minimum coverage calculation);
Riverfront
Broadway - "Downtown"
Broadway - "East and West"
Walnut
Pine
_Seventh Street
Transitional
Neighborhood
Industrial
Park and Open Space
CiviclInstitutional
30 percent
30 percent, except that pedestrian pas-
sages and plaza spaces developed in
concert with buildings are exempt
does not apply
30 percent
20 percent
20 percent
does not apply
does not apply
25 percent
does not apply
exempt (to ensure these buildings can
remain prominent relative to other
downtown 'development and to allow
outdoor public spaces to be created on
these sites)
Establish requirements for street
frontage "build-out (DeSign
Guldl!llne 3.1)
r--l
J Itr'
,.d.~:;:
Establish requirements for minI-
mum Jol coverage (Design
GuIdeline 3.1)
· Building footprint size and "bay width" (the width of a storefront or ;L' ..
segment of a continuous facade at which building must be divided) for I
A New Bridge .
RwtYJlzJnt MontJaIlo'f DowIItDwn W RIvetfronI .
P.p 3:33
:;
3.0
The Configuration of Sites
rm1
W: ? SET.
. 1N'tt;ft:
I'\(lf-/I'r .
m r, .
.". '...;.
1--1
~'
I IIJil.D. To
"IN~.
, . .
. . .
EstabUsh setbacks and buUd-to
lines for downtown districts
(DesIgn GuIdelIne 3.1)
~ ;A_...P
~ RMt61JzJnB MontIaBo's DcJwn/rMn IlIId RIvetfrDnl
'lit 3:32
..
2.3
fill
fill
..
Establish spaces for community gathering that are oriented to importan.
civic, community and natural features;
"
"
· Develop West Bridge Park to accommodate significant and scheduled
downtown gatherings; focus efforts at East Bridge Park on becoming a
more passive escape from the activities of downtown.
· Develop a gathering space at a new City Hall to function as a
Monticello "town square,"
· Develop a space in downtown that can accommodate a farmers mar-
ket.
· Allow for some downtown streets to be closed for larger community
gatherings and events.
· Utilize similar patterns and materials in the public gathering spaces as
found in the streets to make the gathering spaces feel like a natural
extension of the street.
"
"
"
"
2.4
"
..
..
"
.-
.-
· Maintain a regular spacing of streets and a grid patterns of streets and .-
blocks in downtown. ...
· Use traffic calming techniques to keep speeds of traffic at safe levels
and to encourage the use of "streets" by pedestrians. ...
· Allow and encourage on-street parking on downtown streets to ...
achieve traffic calming, to create a more active street environment, and ..
to make a better transition between traffic and pedestrians. ~
Develop a street system to appropriate to a downtown environment.
3. I Establish common setback and lot coverage standards for each "district"
to ensure compatible and maximum development in downtown
Monticello.
..
..
..
..
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
· Setbacks (minimum distance from a right-of-way in which no struc-
ture may encroach) and build-to lines (a line measured from the right-
of-way which at least 70 percent of the primary structure must touch)
for downtown "districts" are established as follows:
Riverfront Build-to line:
Broadway - "Downtown" Build-to line:
Broadway - "East and West" Setback:
o feet
o feet
Average of adjacent
structures, but no less
th~n '.:)eet
o feet
20 feet
~..
Average of adjacent
structures, but no less
than 20 feet
Average of adjacent
structures, but no less
than 20 feet
...
'"
'-
{!
~nut'
Pine
Seventh Street
Transitional
Build-to line:
Setback:
Setback:
Setback:
Neighborhood
Setback:
.
5r
I.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.~
t
,
,
I ,..
.......
· A range of uses and activities shall occur in downtown, including
commercial/retail, office, public/civic, housing and recreation/enter-
tainment uses.
· A guide for uses shall be established, but flexibility should be allowed
to enhance the goal of an active and vital downtown environment.
1.3
Develop a downtown and riverfront area that is compact and walkable,
with a density of development and a level of activity that set it apart
from the rest of the community.
· Buildings shall be placed near the street to create a strong edge to the
, street, a sense that you are passing something, and an opportunity to
see into a building from the sidewalk or see the activity of the street
from the building.
· Land resources shall be shared wherever possible to allow for a greater
amount of development in a limited space (for example, providing for
joint use parking, shared loading and service areas, and "regional"
stormwater management).
· Clustering of buildings shall be encouraged to allow people to walk
easily from one use to another; stand-alone uses and uses that are ori-
ented strongly to the automobile shall be discouraged.
· Downtown shall be as comfortable for pedestrians as it is convenient
for cars, recognizing that, once a car is parked, the driver becomes a
pedestrian.
· A pedestrian system shall be developed to reach all uses in downtown
and form a strong connection to surrounding neighborhoods.
BUildings shall be plactd near
streets (DesIgn GuIdeline 13)
A_Ill'.. T~
R~ManIJctIIo's ~MdR1vfrl1f1nt!M
hgr 3:29
1.4
Structure the street system to accommodate downtown traffic and
"through" traffic, to support businesses, improve circulation, and main-
"
· Walnut Street and "cross" streets shall be oriented to pedestrians but
sh IC.
· Pine Street shall be oriented to vehicles while accommodating pedes-
trians.
· Broadway shall be balanced in its orientation to pedestrians and vehi-
cle traffic.
· The entrances to downtown shall be marked to announce one's arrival
in downtown.
1.5
Explore a range of transportation modes to manage traffic in downtown
Monticello.
· Walking and biking shall be accommodated in downtown and at every
site in downtown.
· Regularly scheduled community "circulator" service shall be explored
as a way of moving people into and out of downtown without their
cars.
· A trolley on the railroad tracks should be considered to provide for a
unique attraction and as a method of community transportation.
1.6
Recognize patterns that are appropriate to varying downtown "districts"
in an effort to create development that "fits" the context of each district.
s
~.
Establlsh requirements for buDd.
Ing footprint and bay width
(DesIgn Guideline 3.1)
lDaIte parking behind or beside
buildings (DesIgn Guideline 3.2)
;L' ...
I
, A New Bridge
. Rtwwl#rlf MonIkrlJo's DowrrtDtrn #/lid RIrriont
Pilp3:3.f
*3.2
"
the primary structure on each site is as follows: ,
Riverfront 2,000 square feet minimum; 7.00
square feet maximum
25 foot to 40 foot bays
2.000 square feet minimum; 10.000
square feet maximum
20 foot to 50 foot bays
Broadway - "East and West" does not apply
Walnut 2.000 square feet minimum; 8.000
square feet maximum
25 foot to 50 foot bays
3.500 square feet minimum; 7.000
square feet maximum
requirement for bays does not apply
3.500 square feet minimum; 65.000
square feet maximum
requirement for bays does not apply
maximum footprint no larger than 130
percent of the average of other struc-
tures within 250 feet of site
maximum footprint no larger than 115
percent of the average of other struc-
tures within 250 feet of site
does not apply
does not apply
does not apply
Broadway - "Downtown"
Pine
~venth Street
Transitional
Neighborhood
Industrial
Park and Open Space
Civic/Institutional
.
Make buildings the focus of Monticello's downtown and riverfront, not
parking areas.
· Locate parking behind or beside buildin wit~h an 25 per-
cent 0 required parking in a side yard in th Walnut r?adway ~
"Downtown" and Riverfront Districts, and no m an 75 percent in
e Pine and Seve Street Di tricts .
· Prohibit parkin areas adjacent to intersections of streets.
· equire separation of parking areas rom Ul lOgS and public side-
walks for landscaping and buffering.
· Visual separation between parking areas and public rights-of-way shall
use landscape materials or ornamental fences (no berms such that a
screen that is at least 50 opaque is present in all seasons to a height of
28 inches to 36 inches).
3.3
Create parking to accommodate anticipated and realistic demands, with-
out overbuilding parking facilities.
· Encourage development of joint-use parking facilities. balancing use
on a day-today and hour-ta-hour basis to achieve the highest possible
use of each parking space created.
· Create parking for office uses at rates between 3 and 4 spaces per 1000
square feet gross floor area; create parking for retail uses at rates
.
(
<<
<<
-5
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
6.
Public Hearina: Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use
Permit PUO and Variance from the parkina reauirements for a
commercial use in the CCO zonina district. Applicant: James &
Gruber. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backaround.
The applicants are seeking approval of a commercial project along Walnut
Street, south of 3rd Street. The project would retain the existing James and
Gruber building, and construct a new building along Walnut Street within the
existing parking lot. The existing building is approximately 4,750 square feet in
area, and the new building would add approximately 12,900 square feet of new
commercial space on two levels, a new total of 17,650 square feet on the project.
The building would have a main level and a lower level with window exposure at
the sidewalk level.
The project plans show a parking lot of 38 spaces, including parking that utilizes
accesses in the alley area. Walnut Street is also shown with angled parking
consistent with the City's Walnut Street improvement plans.
.
The CCD District includes a clause that permits developers to reduce their
parking supply to 60% of the standard requirement under certain conditions.
These conditions include an agreement that the parking lot will be made open
and available to any vehicles (during reasonable business hours). The
applicants also have the opportunity, on approval of the City, to pay into a public
parking fund that is designed to accumulate funds for acquisition, construction,
and maintenance of centralized public parking at locations chosen by the City in
the downtown area. The theory behind this ordinance relies on the ability of
different commercial users to share parking on a single block, relying on differing
peak use periods to avoid congestion. When that congestion does occur, street
parking should be available to accommodate any overflow.
In this case, the required parking, according to the standard zoning regulations,
would be approximately 79 parking spaces. At 60% (assuming the parking lot is
open to others, the requirement would be 48 spaces. As noted, the site plan
shows 38 spaces, a deficit of 10 spaces from the City's reduced allowance.
Moreover, the applicant has located the parking lot adjacent to the neighboring
parcel, with no setback as is typically required. This can be accommodated by
the PUD process, and the neighboring property owner, Ace Hardware, has
signed on to the PUD. The concern with the proposed layout, however, is that no
connection to the adjoining Ace Hardware site is provided with this plan.
Planning staff would recommend at least one connection to the Ace Hardware lot
to justify the concept of open use of the parking area. This will likely reduce the
. available parking on the proposed plan by two or three more spaces.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
The question becomes whether the City wishes to grant a variance or consider a
reduction in the number of required spaces and accept a parking fund
contribution. It should be noted that future expansion on the other two lots (Ace
Hardware and Napa Auto Parts) could be affected by any deficit approved on the
Walnut Plaza site.
.
The City has previously discussed the latter concept, given the availability of
parking in Walnut Street. The funds received from the applicants for their parking
deficit (for 12 or 13 spaces based on a final site plan) would be able to be applied
to Walnut Street improvements that would provide as many as 18 on-street
spaces in this block. As a result, there should be adequate parking in the area,
provided that the buildings are designed to accept entrance from the Walnut
Street side as well as the parking side.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development for a zero
setback parking lot in the CCO.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the parking lot design with a zero
setback, with the condition that a connection to the adjoining parcel is
provided, based on a finding that the PUO facilitates joint parking use
which reduces the overall need for parking facilities in the downtown
area.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD, based on a finding that the five
foot separate for landscape space should be retained.
Decision 2: Variance from the parking standards to allow a commercial
development that provides less than the 60% threshold for parking.
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that the applicant has
shown a unique hardship in complying with the terms of the ordinance
for reasonable use of the property.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that the applicant has
shown no unique hardship, but that the reduction in parking may be
allowed by payment into the City's parking fund.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the CUP/PUO, with the condition that an opening
for cross-access is retained between this parking area and the Ace Hardware
parking lot. The zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan would encourage
this type of shared parking, as long as access between shared areas is
.
.
'.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -11/03/03
convenient and available. Without the cross-access, the PUD would not be
appropriate.
With regard to the variance to allow construction of commercial space without
adequate parking, planning staff does not recommend approval. There does not
appear to be any hardship in preparing a reasonable development use for the
property, indeed, the City permits a significant reduction in the parking
requirements to allow what would otherwise be seen as overdevelopment.
However, due to the potential for Walnut Street improvements that would provide
a supply on on-street parking consistent with the Revitalization Plan, planning
staff would recommend that the City permit the applicants to provide parking as
shown on the plan, and that the remainder of the deficiency (based on a final site
plan) be compensated by the applicants through a payment to the City's parking
fund. By creating the spaces in Walnut Street, adequate on-site and on-street
parking should be available to accommodate the needs of the project.
D. Supportina Data
Proposed Site Plan
.
iv~" .;~ .l;t ' '':
~~,.;", /"',<.~
it.': ..,
~ 1t.;~
r."~_
i'"....'
",'-" ~,
.
..J.' a~ . ,
fl.,!
.
~ '
... ~~""'..
.., "j ",,\'" ":i.":.
.
~&
"; ,..
~ ......,.
,- .....
:"~:"~.~
~ ,
'f"" '.......
",,'
......-~_.......-
. d
. ~ !.J
;..JI
-
.. ' "'
II
w ~ (""..)
{C 0."2-""-
f .'f ' ,~
. ,:-.... ..
~ .. '1' "'. r' -
','^ :to. 'i.. .
i _~\:~ ~ '~~ ! ~'~(~~ :f
'. I
\-
~':5.
"
"
".
'l-.
_" 1
;-. . .
. .,,.. '.j ;",i,: .,..<" . ----
'i"~'.' .....
;,. ~_...
_I..'"''''
..:. .f:'
....
.;
"
~
, I
'f \I
Ii ^ft,:.~
. ~ 6Jo
III ~l
.a
~...
., .
~
.
"
....
.."
:i
.w
if
. l
..A "t.. :- ,
~... ~~ ..
~~\.
'. - .',. '"
1, f
IJJ~'. ..' .
u~ ~ ~:'" ~ "..,. ',~
, - -'
~
~
~
l
"
'.
b
_'If -~ _orA> - _ ~ .!i1<,,~ ,p
i1 ~._.- -" _M. ~ dV ~' ~- _~". ~
.-:.' : ..;':-:.::Y1\':::::::::0~6Z6 '-:-:::::::::-:-:~?:':':':"":::::j~~:::::::::)~dl:-:n~:::~.::;';" .-;~ .... '1'1
. "..... ':..r:': . . " . . . '... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'F~'.. ';:: ;1 ~
. '. . . '. . . . . . . . . '. . . . . ... . . . . '.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.. ~ -...'>}, . '~'. ~ "" . . . '. -. .
..;........"................ ~... '. '.' ~" y . '. ',,. . . . · ...... '..'.'....'.. ., ..-py.. . ... . . ..... .' ;"'. .-:-:t11--
............~.... ..............."?- L .". ~: '/.,1, ,J" ":. .1'. I' .T.' '. l. ~o-.~. .,~. ........., .~.....
............... .'. ............. ,---., . . .L...:.... :I' ../ " '. " ............ \ _'l..~
~.. .... "-:';'.-:":';':~ "'~~ ~,,""-:';':f~~t'ii" Zl'lfl 3 .Zt.c;r O~ S.C-,> ~15~ '. -:-:.;.... lI'fio)
Ao.{21 _~. -.. I't""#" '---=.f=:!: .~~ S-.c 11:= ,,"'~ .... I"
- .... . ~ ~~ 100''''' (IN'(l r": ~ _ [., 0)
I ..." '::.'J, r:l. '.I,,,_'T.O~6~~ V: ~ .:. ...
=~ ,',' . . .,..,c-,.....
C to ~ '.' ,'. .' "
.... i. ~ , :::' .. ,::
," .'.....: '.". .-..
j..:..o '0.;.;,:. ,n.. IWj "
. .:';-'. . :'-!. ...., .. .",
,.~., -+7 .l?....! /'
. ,," ,..,. '... /'
,~ '''_____ i....J:ft'....,...:.........;
~r6 i4i: ~LF,:
'~~~~ ......o.~.(':v
~I;',.;::' ____ ______~. ~
-.... CD h' '.
, , ...J '" r--. ;..,.,..:: a" .,' "
:: 0;' to ~ 0 ~ '. :..:: ~ . ':' ~
h. V 0_ Z I~' I.. ' . ' .
~J ....., Jov _. .' _ ~ .
~ oo.lt"~rr6 _______ _ ::h,1 'OX ~ ~ I.... ~ ;;~'; 'l!!!l. .
_____...fh vOeD 4 ~
' "-. ....0:: ',',,:.~ .:.:'
.:. .:"~ ---a: ~ : ~
,;i; ~'-~ -
VC.,7X x x 31 ~ .",~,,':',":'.':: tZi....,':..:;., :=
~X x x x Yx')l, "';';'. ij .
.,.E;tj',; ~
- +':.'-:i,~ ;; iL.: ~
i, ... - ":". I',;~.',. g "
~;! :::; ~ ---.:::::: ,:', " '_ '..'.~ I /'" -r(' ~
3~ "', ,') ~~.::'.' ~~r:')~/ w
;~ I. L ~tiJ.~.'.. ~
~! .cr.,.' w .0-." .0"'." ~~ .0-." .. .o-J.~
~~ "'," .,....., ',', .".':;r/ COr
~Q, "~'>'.;'.,~,.." ',.. ..",~.:,:"" ~';, -lo6
-.:1. ;:;.. '~~:;:,:.,:.: .,,i.:..;,..~ ....~.l;. ,:;. ]":";.' ,,~,~ :,"':;;'.. . - N':kl -~ ,..~:- . ,...'.' ~"::.: .' 1 ~
~ ,'.;'.... .. ~"I ow ..... "......, .. a..
e,.1. " ,..; : ".: i;~
'; , r::..;T ':'.~",r ..._,
;-t" oe. ) -d
--
:;1. ':J1l ~
COlt) :XV:I
COttJ :Sn9
]('\0':> '18
03~90 Otl
NVdX~ ~.1NOt'i :~..~
- ~^3l/
~vs 'AI NMWO
1:0-10-01 'iI.1 vo
- 1I~"""'" lIOf'
8811. iJ9iJ OiJE:
NN 'Ol1:JO!1UON '18:JJ1S lnuf'1Af. He
VZV7d LflN7VM
:O.L NOI.LVAON3H If NOI.LlaaV
-
..L33~..LS O~~ .l..S3M
~
~~l
t~~
J ~.-,
:. d
z 'f
...!!1
i~~~ :
~~~ I ~
:11; :
Q,Q,~
,~-
..
~
l;:j -
~ <(
~
W
W
It
~
(f)
~
J
Z
.J
<{
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
7.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request to allow directional signs
in the riaht of way. Applicant: West Metro Buick Pontiac GMC.
(NAC)
A. Reference and Backaround.
The applicants are seeking a variance from the City's sign ordinance and right of
way ordinance that require all private signs to be located upon the property of the
owner, and accordfng to the required setback regulations of the zoning district.
In this case, the proposed signs have already been erected, and are on the right
of way of Sandberg Road. There are three such signs for which the applicant is
requesting this variance. The site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial, and
currently has other signage (both wall-mounted and freestanding) that identify the
applicant's business to traffic along 1-94 and Trunk Highway 25.
Variance requests are to be reviewed as whether a unique physical hardship
exists that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, the
applicant has highly visible property and is seeking an advantage in sign display
that is denied to other commercial concerns. The applicant has occupied the
property for some time, and there does not appear to be any unique property
conditions that make the use of the property unreasonable or uneconomical.
.
Moreover, private advertising signs within the right of way could interfere with
traffic visibility and street maintenance operations, creating and unsafe condition.
Because there is no specific hardship to support a variance in this case, the
granting of such a variance could lead to concerns of precedent and how other
requests might be reviewed. The City is obligated to apply its zoning regulations
equitably among the various properties in the zoning district, and could have
trouble denying future requests for similar signs.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Variance from the sign setback provisions for location of signs
within the public right of way.
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that the conditions of
the property are unique, creating a hardship in putting the property to
reasonable use, justifying the placement of signs within the right of
way.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that no hardship exists,
and that placement of the signs as proposed could result in a safety
hazard to traffic in the area.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
c.
Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends denial of the variance. The City has a high interest in
maintaining right of ways that are clear from obstruction, due both to safety of
traffic and maintenance operations. Because no unique conditions exist that
create a hardship in this case, planning staff does not recommend the variance.
The applicant should be required to remove the existing offending signs within
seven calendar days.
D. Supporting Data
Site Plan
.
.
.
j)cl.ue h~~/"\
/1c Uc; I. (J'(\c...Q.
v,(....:f 6.fJlO;/d r'o
(\!.g)(!S~C)'
Mo II e
N ~ e Sf S.A <.
-(
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
8.
Public Hearina: Consideration of amendments to the City's Sign
Ordinance addressina "Sandwich Board" (Portable Sians) in the
CCD Zonina District. Applicant: Monticello Chamber of Commerce.
(NAC)
A. Reference and Backaround.
At the request of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, staff has prepared a
draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which 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 CCO, 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 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.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
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.
10. No sign shall be permitted to be attached to any public structure or
facility.
B. Alternative Actions.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that
such signs are consistent with the intent of the downtown area and
with the recommendations of the Revitalization Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that
such signs will raise issues of blight and enforcement problems.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends the amendment. Many "downtown" areas permit these types
of signs, so long as they are limited in size and are focused on providing
information to pedestrians rather than motorists. With the requirements
suggested in this ordinance, staff believes that issues of blight or enforcement
should be minimized.
The Design Advisory Team has also reviewed the proposed ordinance
amendment and recommends approval. Their recommendation included a
request to drop the maximum sign height from 5' to 4' which was incorporated
into the proposed ordinance.
D. Supporting Data
1. 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 "CCDN - CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 3-9. (B).l (permitted signs) is hereby amended to add the
following:
(i) Portable Signs (as defined in Section 3-9.(B).2.(e).i).
Such signs shall be 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
or vehicle circulation. I f on the
such signs shall be placed so that
feet of sidewalk is available
pedestrians.
impede pedestrian
public sidewalk,
nc less than six
for passing of
4. The signs 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
"fluorescentN colors.
1
53
8. The maximum size
five (4) feet in
and must comply
ordinance.
of such signs shall be no greater than
height and six (6) square feet in area,
with all other regulations of this
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.
10. No such sign shall be connected or attached to any
public structure, including light poles, traffic control
devices, public street furniture, utility equipment, or
other such facility.
Section 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-
getting devices as defined in iii. - v. below, except as
allowed in Section 3-9. (B) .1. (i) and as provided for in
Subsection (C), Paragraph 4.
Section 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
.
.
.
<[)
...
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03103
.
9.
Consideration of a request for a Concept Planned Unit Development
approval for residential and industrial uses. Applicant: Otter Creek
LLC. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backaround.
The applicants have received a conditional approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment that allowed them to propose a residential development on a portion
of land previously guided for industrial use. The parcel in question is a 19 acre
triangle that lies southwest of a power line corridor, west of 90th Street NW. The
applicants had originally proposed that all 19 acres be guided for residential use,
using the power line corridor as the buffer area.
There were numerous comments related to the need to provide for better
separation of the residential from the power line area, and the applicants were
asked to amend their layout to accommodate this discussion. The amended
concept plan illustrates a looped roadway from southeast corner to northwest
corner that would provide access to rows of residential units. Three industrial
lots are then provided adjacent to the power line corridor, surrounded on the
south and west by the residential project.
.
One of planning staffs primary concerns with introducing residential onto this site
related to the proximity of that residential to several different conditions that serve
to hold down the value of the residential neighborhood. These included the
proximity to industrial development, adjacency to major power transmission lines
and towers, and exposure to the interstate freeway. While the revised plan
reintroduces industrial uses to buffer the residential from the power line in a
portion of the subject site, it does not accomplish this objective completely,
leaving residential uses at the edges and essentially surrounding the industrial
parcels with higher density housing.
Planning staff does not believe that the proposed solution results in a
neighborhood that would be an attractive place to live. In attempting to find a
compromise position, it was staff's understanding that industrial uses were to
continue to abut the entire power line corridor, leaving the residential area
buffered from the power lines by industrial use, and providing an opportunity to
then buffer the rear yards of the industrial from the residential project. If a
concept plan is to be considered, planning staff would recommend that it be
approved only with the industrial fronting the full length of the power transmission
lines, a depth for industrial lots of no less than 400 feet, and adequate rear yard
areas to satisfy the City's bufferyard requirements.
.
Without these changes, planning staff believes that the intent of the City's
conditional approval will not have been met, and could not recommend the
concept.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
B.
Alternative Actions.
.
Decision 1: Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for residential and
industrial lots.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept PUD, based on a finding
that the proposed layout meets the City's expectations and
requirements for land use separation and buffering.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the concept PUD, with the condition that
the concept plan be revised to illustrate industrial uses along the full
length of the power transmission corridor as discussed in this report.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the concept PUD, based on a finding that
parcel is of inadequate size to meet the requirements for land use
transition and buffering the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance.
c. Staff Recommendation.
Staff believes that the introduction of residential uses onto this parcel is .
problematic due to the issues raised in this report, including proximity to industrial
uses and required buffering, proximity to major power transmission facilities, and
exposure to the freeway. However, if residential uses are to be considered,
planning staff can only recommend residential with the condition that industrial
uses front the entire power line corridor, and buffering is provided for between
the industrial and residential areas. Because of the land required to accomplish
these objectives, only a small portion of the site would appear to be usable for
residential. However, it is the opinion of planning staff that without these
changes, the quality of the residential neighborhood will be highly compromised.
D. SUDPortina Data
1. Site Plan
.
,-
~@
__(~--- II
o i
Ul
a::
U (Il
(Il <( (Il
Ul "- .... w
a::V1~ a:: a:: (Il
U U Ul
Uw- <( <( a::
<(~Z U
+l :l +l +l <(
1l'lJ:.,. I") 01
0 .., +l
lli""'''! oi N ;0
....Olll'l .... .... ....
<(
Ul
a::
<(
o
z
<(
...J
t-
~
0
~ ~
~
,........
E
~
/ (1)
/ U
/ Q
/
/ 0
U
bf
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
.
10. Consideration of a reauest to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan
relatina to the development of Block 52 (Hiahwav 25 and Broadway).
Applicant: Steve Johnson. (NAC)
A. Reference and Background.
The applicant represents a development interest on Block 52, and is the owner of
a portion of the property on this block. The site in question is the northwest
corner of Highway 25 and Broadway, bounded by Walnut Street on the west and
River Street on the north. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a traditional
downtown development pattern throughout the downtown area, including a set of
design standards that encourage and/or require "zero" setback building locations
and parking areas that are placed behind the primary commercial buildings they
serve.
The proposed development would consist of the removal of most of the buildings
along Broadway and River Street (retaining the one building at the corner of
Broadway and Walnut), and elimination of the public parking lot along River
Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant proposes a Walgreen's
Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all sides, and a row of
residential units along River Street.
.
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site
plan for the Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that
includes parking along the primary exposures to Highway 25 and Broadway, in
direct opposition to the traditional development pattern and the requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be willing
to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a
sense of the zero setback building required by the planning policies, as well as
use building architecture that would be more traditional in nature.
However, the site plan shortcomings of this proposal are dramatic. Particularly at
the prime intersection of the downtown area, a suburban style development
would be contrary to foundation on which the Plan is built, and on which the City
has spent considerable amounts of funds to help achieve. Although the
applicants argue that their tenant will accept no other design due to economic
requirements of their business, several other development projects have been
completed or are proposed throughout the downtown area that reflect the
objectives of the Plan. Among these are the Town Centre project, Landmark
Square, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under consideration.
.
In addition, the City has a signicant area zoned for the style of project proposed
by the developers. The B-3 and B-4 zoned areas south of Interstate 94 permit
this type of commercial site planning. and various projects of this type are under
way in those areas. The introduction of this type of site development in the core
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's planning process, nor
with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout
the downtown area.
.
The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request
at this time. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential
merit, a public hearing should be called for formal consideration of the request at
the December meeting.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan in the downtown area that would support a Walgreen's
Pharmacy and parking lot locations along the streets.
1. Motion to call for a public hearing.
2. Motion to deny the request for a public hearing at this time.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends that no amendment be considered at this time. Although the
applicants may have found a tenant who is interested in the site, the restrictions .
placed on the development of the property by that tenant are completely
inconsistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing
development pattern, and other new projects in the downtown area that reflect
the direction of the City's planning goals. Other sites in the community would be
appropriate for the proposed use, but the prime corner would be the least
appropriate location.
D. Supportina Data
Site Plan
.
~
~
!
~
,- ~
. .. i
:<
:3
.
.
~
~ ":EPr~. '21;c:'?
f1I\191~
-- ~- -- -....., -- ....--.-,
-
m~~
..~
...-
I~~l.
I"'l,
~y
".
---
1I'I411....'n....
...----....
f
~
~ ~
J I
8
c::-I
10
J'
10
Redmond Commt:rcial Development
GALLERY
Walgreens
Mukwonago
J
.~II
~ii~
~I ~;~. ~
filii ~ ~
iI~(a
lJiI
lu.e!' TO OVEFlV'~~ ~:
,.
--
Cl2003 The Reamond Comoany
:p://www.redmondcomm~rClJLcorn 13.hlm!
jO
10/13/2003
Page 1 of 1
.
.
.
Redmond Commercial Development
.
.
GALLERY
Walgreens
Moorland/Greenfield - Brookfield
J
C 2003 The Redmond Company
.
http://www.redmondcommercial.comlIO.html
Page 1 of 1
.~11
~lill
~~~
:,..: "
~r~" ~'''''~
g~~
~~
~..
. ~ ,~':.. . .'
:'. 6A"Ot< !.Q QoJEfI"'('lJ'l-
-
)0
1 0/13/2003
Redmond Commercial Development
GAu..ERY
~~~~;'~~;~~nSW Shoes
45.480 square feet
J
C 2003 The Redmono Company
http://www.redmondcommcrcial.com/6. html
Page I of 1
.
II!;.
~lill
~~~
.[I~
. iii
- 6t"~I<.' -T-~' -6iJiRCI~,j/')"
" ....- ~ J<-<-' .
.
-
.
,0
10/13/2003
":r
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/03
11. Consideration of a reauest to permit a re-use of an existina non-
conformina buildina. Applicant: Beth Austin. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backqround.
The former Grimsmo funeral chapel at 530 West Broadway is located within a
residential zoning district. The city permitted occupation of the building for office
use following the relocation of the funeral chapel facility to the former City Hall
site, based on a finding that the office did not expand the non-conforming use of
the property (a requirement of the zoning ordinance for non-conformities). The
owner of the property made various improvements to the property, including the
installation of parking lot paving that violated the five foot setback and eliminating
the opportunity to screen parking from neighboring residential parcels.
The upper level of the building was previously used for residential purposes.
This use would be nominally consistent with the parcel's zoning. An applicant is
seeking to re-use the upper level for yoga classes. The applicant proposes
evening and morning classes with occasional weekend use as well. The
question for the City is whether this would constitute an expansion of non-
conforming uses in the building.
Planning staff's position is that the use is not allowed in the residential zoning
district, and that an expansion of this type of activity would be considered
prohibited by the ordinance. Moreover, even though the previous use of the
building was commercial in nature, that use was discontinued several years ago,
extinguishing any "grandfathered" use rights it may have carried.
B. Alternative Actions.
Action for the Planning Commission would be discussion and consideration of
whether the proposed classes represent an expansion of non-conforming use of
the property.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staffs opinion is that the proposed classes would be both an expansion and an
introduction of a non-conforming use, and thereby prohibited by the zoning
ordinance. The applicant's remedy would be to seek a rezoning of the property,
however, staff does not offer an opinion on the appropriateness of such as
rezoning in the midst of a residential area.
D. Supportinq Data
1.
Applicant's letter
t
:NAC FAX NO. :9525959837
OCT 213 'B3 12118PM CITY OF'" MONTICEl.LO
Oct. 31 2003 11:34AM Pi
~.2~
September 23. 2003
. To: JeffO'Ncill
From: Beth Austin
.
.
Re: Yoga. Studio at 530 W. Broadway, Building owned by Dave Thielman
In reference to our conversation today concerning my use of the upper rear port:on of this building.
This area includes the pordl area and a largo room approx. 29'x26'.
. CUITent use is Yoga classes of 10 students or leal, Tuesday It; Thursday everings between 6pm and
9pm, there are two classes ead1. evening with time in betwcc:n for students u, come and go without
overflowing parking area a4jacent to building.
. Proposed \1SQ is Yoga cluses of 10 students or le58 on Monday, Tuesday aD!' Thursday evenings.
occasionaIly a W edD.esday evenins class with these classes occ:uning betwa:n 6pm and 9 pm with
time in bctwcc:n for students to come and go without overt1owing parking- area. Also a Saturday
and Tuesday morning class of 10 students or less occurring between 9am anj l1am. and an
occasional (every 2 months or more) Saturday aftemoon class occurringbetNeen 12pm and 3pm.
. The proposed use (except for the Tuesday am class) will not occur at the SaIne time the employees
of Dave's business ue there. so the psrlcing available a4jacent to the buildin~ will be more than
s~fficient fot iny students. I do not expect'the Tuesday am class to cause a problem, as it is only
75 minutes long and generally is not a lal'gl!l clw.
. Yoga 15 a quiet and relaxing practice so there is no loud talking or people stmding in groups
outside before or after class, they come and go quietly arriving about the same time and leaving at
the same time, so there isn't a lot of traffic continually going in and out oftlte building.
As to the impact of the current business being less or equal to that of the previa ~ business, the current
and proposed activity is consistcrrt accl quiet, with students and employees com lng and going at
regular times. parking only in the a4jacent lot. occasionally a car or two may bE on West Broadway.
Whereas the activity of the mortuary. though not consistent was made up of large gatherings that often
spilled out onto the side walkt with people pthering in groups talking and smoking, the parking WU
often all along West B~way aDd lDany times the side streets as well. Overa1:., we are a quieter
group.
Also worth mentioning is that thiJ space is now being used in a way tbat is mor: positive and uplifting
than before. People come to Yoga to relax and conneet with themselves as well a.i to gain physical
stamina and flexibility, The people coming to classes are relaxed and content when they leave and
thus the energy ofthc building and the sU11'oun~ng area is lighter and happier.
If you have any questions concerning the Yoga studio please feel free to call m: at 295-4235.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beth Austin
.~
( ('L (\
~~~..-
, I