Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-26-1984 SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION March 26, 1904 - 6:00 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran. 6:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 6:02 P.M. 2. Planning Commission Review of Tax Increment Financing Proposal - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. 6:30 P.M. 3. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 7:00 P.M. 4. Consideration of a Conditional Use Meguest to Allow Signs on a Business Building with More Than two Businesses in the Building. Additional Informational Items 7:15 P.M. 1. The next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission will be on April 10, 1904, 7130 P.M. 7:17 P.M. 2. Adjournment. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 3/26/84 2. Planninq Commission Review of Tax Increment Financing Proposal - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. As required by statute, the Planning Commission must review any tax increment financing proposal and must pass a resolution making a finding that the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. You will also be reviewing a modification to the redevelopment project that was approved back in 1982. The modification is primarily a laundering of legal language. The HRA has already adopted a resolution approving the project and the modification. This is the project that will be accompanied by HUD U.D.A.G. funds and perhaps Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. I don't think there will be any inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. In the preparation of the U.D.A.G. application, staff tried to be very cognizant of all zoning provisions so that the project would be in full conformance upon approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution making a finding that the project is in conformance with City planning policies and goals. 2. Do not adopt said resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the adoption of the ordinance no that the procoss may continua. D. SUPPORTING DATA. Copy of the resolution adopted by the Housing and Redovolopment Authority. Copy of the proposed resolution for Planning Commianion adoption. A RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 1, DATED MARCH 15, 1984 TO THE MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN BY THE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF M NNPSOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.411, et seq. WHEREAS, The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority') is carrying out the Monticello Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"), pursuant to the approval of the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City"); and WHEREAS, Section 462.525, Subd. 6, of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act (the "Housing Act") provides that a redevelopment project may be modified at any time provided that the modification shall be adopted by the Authority and the City Council of the City upon such notice and after such public hearing as is required for the original adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the project be undertaken as rapidly as possible and be financed with local funds Including tax increment financing as authorized by M innesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.78; end WHEREAS, In connection with the undertaking of certain project modifications by the Authority. pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et seg. the approval by the Board of Commissioners lthe "governing body') of the Authority of the redevelopment plan for the project area Involved in such undertaking is required by the local governing body before it will consider for approval said Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, there was presented to this meeting of the governing body of the Authority for its consideration and approval, a copy of a housing and redevelopment plan for sold project area dated March 15, 1984 which plan is entitled the Redevelopment Project Plan Modification 111; and WHEHEA.S, the Authority adopts the tax Increment financing plan as part of the method of finuncing; and WIiEREAS, the Authority has prepared Modification No. 1, dated March 15, 1954, to the Plan ("Modification No. 1") and submitted Modification No. 1 to the City Planning Commission of the City of Dionticello (the "Planning Commission") for Its review and opinion; and NOW, THPREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and for the City of Monticello: 1. That the redevelopment project area described in said Redevelopment Project Plan Modification No. 1 dated March 15, 1984 contains blighted and deteriorated or deteriorating areas as defined in the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes. Section 462.421, 0 Subdivision 13, and requires public assistance in order to eliminate said blighted, deteriorating and economically obsolete areas. 2. The said Plan and Project will carry out the purpose and policy of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act of the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes, Section 4G2.415 to 462.711 as set forth in Section 462.415. 3. The said Redevelopment Plan is hereby in all respects approved and the Secretary is hereby directed to file said Redevelopment Plan with the Minutes of this meeting. 4. Application is hereby made to the City Council of the City of Monticello, the governing body of the City In which said project is located, for the approval of said Plan and project area, and the staff of this Authority is authorized to transmit said Plan to said City Council, together with a copy of this Resolution, a plan for financing the project including the adoption of the tax increment financing plan and to take such other action as the said staff may deem necessary and advisable in order to secure from said City Council its approval of said Plan and project. Said City Council is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on said Redevelopment Project Plan Modification No. 1 after giving published notice of the date, time, place and purpose of such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Monticello, such notice to be published at least ten days and no more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. Said City Council is her9by requested to approve said Plan and project modification and to find by Resolution that: (1) the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; (2) the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment project in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private enterprise; and (3) the redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole, and (4) that the project will result In increased employment in the municipality and will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality, and (5) that the plan for relocation of the individuals and families displaced In carrying out the Project In decent, safe and sanitary dwellings in conformity with acceptable standards is feasible and can be reasonably and timely effected to permit the proper execution and completion of the project. Said staff is hereby authorized and directed to transmit to the State Department of Energy and Economic Development, Office of Local Government, certified copies of this Resolution, of sold Plan, and other papers and documents described or referred to in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subdivision 8 of said Municipal Housing and Re &-v--T— said opment Act. Adopted this 19th day of March, 1984. ATTEST: J —Chairman Special Planning Counission Agenda - 3/26/84 3 s 4. Public Hearinq and Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoninq Ordinance. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I susp©ct you have become somewhat weary with dealing with the sign ordinance, but we hope to complete all deliberations an this matter at this time. Briefly, as a result of the application for a Oonditional Use and a Variance by Metcalf and Larson, City staff discovered an inequity in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The inequity arose from the original adoption of the ordinance and from the adaptation from another city' s ordinance. Monticello's Zoning Ordinanco is modeled after the Burnsville Toning Ordinance. In the Burneville Ordinance the Conditional Use Provisions relate to shopping centers. In the Monticello Ordinance the words shopping center were deleted and the word building was inserted. Thus, the restrictions placed on shopping centers in Burnsville suddenly became the restrictions on any building that had two cr more tenants In Monticello. This inequity became very apparent when Metcalf and Larson mado their application. Because we are currently reviewing and revising tho Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance, we thought it would be a workable solution, administratively , to propose for adoption an interim rule which would then be incorporated in the revised Zoning Ordinance next summer. At that point, John Sandberg raised his ob�octions that an interim rule would not carry any legal foundation, that it gave the appearance of arbitrarily changing the ordinancofora specific applicant,and that it could capriciously be invoked and revoked depending on the applicant. Those being logitimato concerns, the City Attorney advicod that we proceed with the formal amendment process to correct the inequity within the ordinance. In diocuosions with John Uban of Howard Dahlgren c A000ciatea, it was agreed that the original intent of the ordinance was to addr000 Oonditional Uses for shopping centers. Thera is also some speculation that the 5% Conditional Uoe is in excess to the allowable sign area that io permitted under Option A and Option B. For example, a strip typo chopping cantor like Knollwood Plaza has signs all along the front that identify the individual buninessco. Zn addition, Knollwood Plaza an a single unit has its own pylon sign out near the highway. It's tJho pylon sign that would be under the Conditional Use proviaion, not the individual buaincoo oigns. Since this intent is very unclear in both the Burnsville Ordinance and copocially in the Monticello Ordinance, we have prepared the proposed amendment to addreoo buildings with multiplo tonanto. Alao, as a result of my dlocuosiona with Uban, there aro oomo minor language changes suggested by him that have changod the proposed amendment from that which you originally saw. The changes are that Option A and Option 8 aro now clearly stipulated - 2 - Special Planning Commission Agenda - 3/26/84 as being for buildings with one and two businesses, and there is a statement of purpose or intent built into the Conditional Use Section. After reading all of the provisions to John Uban over the phone, I did receive oral approval from him that it does address our concerns. I wish to also note that this overall issue is really two issues; one, whether or not to amend the ordinance, and two, whether or not to grant a Conditional Use based an the sign plan submitted. I have advised Metcalf and Larson that their original Conditional Use application will be invalid if the zoning amendment is adopted. As such, they are preparing a new sign permit application on the premise that the amendment will be adopted. Staff has not seen their sign proposal as yet. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: You are actually faced with a two -fold decision. If you recommend adoption of the zoning amendment, then you must decide whether or not to grant the Conditional Use under the terms of the amendment. If you recommend to the Council to not adopt the amendment, then you must reconsider the original Conditional Use Request and Variance Ruquoot. Of couroo, any recommendation of approval of the now application must be contingent upon Council's adoption of the amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONt Staff does recommend that the amendment be adopted and incorporated into the City Zoning ordinance. Staff hoc no pooition on whether or not to grant the Conditional Use, cinco we have not soon the oign plan so of yet. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of the proposed ordinance amendment. If a copy of the sign plan and application arrives before distribution, you will receive one of th000. All other information should have boon provided with earlier agenda oupplcmonto. =I= ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 133 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICEL LO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT TITLE 10-3-9 (E)2 (b) BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS x (b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1 and I-2 Districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs. The property owner shall select one option which shall control sign size on each lot. (1) Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boards or placard, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs, with only two walls allowed for the display of the signs. Each wall shel 1 contain no more than two product identifi- cation signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (201) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, wh 1chaver is less. If a principal building is an a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be used to determine the groes silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the s ilhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that arca within an outline drawing of the principal building an viewed from the front lot lino or from the related public streot(a). (2/26/79 N64) 12) Option B. Undor Option B, either wall oigno or pylon oigns may be utilized, or a combination of both. In no case, however, shall more than one pylon Sign be allowed. Only two product identification signo and one promise identification sign is allowed and th000 wall signs must be only on one Separate wall. Tlw total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall he dot-uxmined by taking ton percent (10%) of the gro:..:] oilhouotte area of thu front of the building, up to ono hwidrod (100) squaro foot, whichever iu lenn. Thu method for determining the groan si lhuuctto area for wall signs is on indicated in Option A. (2/26/79 064) (3) Conditional U:;aye, The purpoue of this ooctlon is to provide eucthet I c cwitrol to signago cord to prevent a proli feration of individual nignu un buildings with threw (3) or more bunincoo uaeo. The City shall encourago the u:.o of uinglu oagn boards, placardo, or building directory Digns. (a) In the cavo of a building whoro there aro three (3) or more buoinaso uses, but which, by generally undo rotood and accepted dofiniti ons, io not conoidereei a chopping center or shopping mall, a Conditional Una shall be grantod to the entire building in accordance with an overall alto plan undor the provisions of Option A or Option B (doacribed in the two preceding coctionD) provided that, 0 Ordinance Amendment #133 Title 10-3-9 (E)2(b) Page 2 (i) The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicated. (11) No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each side of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the rear provided that the total square footage of the twn signs does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage under Option A or Option S. (iii) No individual busine^.n sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five (25%) of the total allowable sign area. of -46 311s (iv) w appli—at desiring any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an appli- cation to the Zoning Adminiatrator for an amended sign plan, raid appli- cation to bo reviewed and acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of application. If the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before Lila Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. (v) In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purposo of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs. (vi) Any building identification sign or building diroctory sign shall be included in the total dllowable area for oignu. (vii) Any aign that io shared by or to a combination of two or more tananto shall be eonaidered as aeparat.o sign%,and shall moot the roquiremento thereof. 4. a (viii) All signo shall be &eaAMiwiip dooign, eaiev, matoriala, ahapo, andAillumination. ..cM of (b) In the caro of o building where there are two (2) or more usoo, and which, by generally underntood and accepted definitionu, lu considerod to be a shopping center or chal-ping mall, a Conditional Uao Permit ❑hall be granted to the Petite building in accordance to sn overall nite plan indicating their sire, location, and height of all aignn proaented to the Planning Comeuston. A maximum of five percUIL (5t,) L3-) ordinance Amendment #133 Title 10-3-9 (E) 2(b) Page 3 of the groes area of the front silhouette shall apply to t1 -le principal building where the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed amongst the several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use permit to a building, the building may have one (1) pylon or free- standing sign Identifying the building which is in conformance with this ordinance. This Amendment adopted this day of 1984, shall take full force and effect upon publication. Thomas A. Eidem City Adminiotrator A,rvc A. Grimsmo, Mayor 0