Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-21-1976Pc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday - December 21, 1976 - 7:30 P. M.
Chairman: Howard Gillham
Members: Dr. C. Bauer, Henry Doerr, Fred Topel,
Jim Ridgeway, J. W. Miller, ex -officio.
vA. Approval of minutes - November 4, 1976.
V'2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Howard
Gillham Property.
3. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments - Pylon Signs.
4. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments - Landscaping
Requirements.
S. Unfinished Husiness.
6. New Business.
MAILING TO:
Dick Dwinnell of
Howard Dahlgren 6 Assoc.
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Agenda Item 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Howard
Gillham Property.
Howard Gillham is requesting the Planning Commission
consider rezoning a portion of his 65 acre tract of
land which is situated just south of West County
Road x/39 and north of the freeway from R-1 (Single
Family Residential) to B-4 (Regional Business).
Enclosed please find a map depicting the area and
one possible rezoning plan.
Mr. Gillham's reason for requesting a change from
residential to commercial is that he feels the pro-
perty bordering the freeway is adapted to commercial
use as opposed to residential. use. He feels that
visibility from the freeway is an asset for commercial
property but is a liability for res.idential property.
Of additional concern is the noise factor which Mr.
Gillham feels is a detriment to a residential area
as may be borne out by the construction of sound
barriers in the Twin Cities along; freeway residential
areas.
Mr. Gillham's immediate concern relative to the re-
zoning request is that unless the property along the
freeway, presently leased for two of four bil]IN)ards,
is zoned commercial or industrial the State Highway
Department will require thecae billlxwards be removed.
Initially, the City of Monticello agreed to "grand-
father" a I I four sites for billboards for five years
as the present city ordinance does not allow bill -
boards. However, the St.at:e will only recognize this
"grandfather" clause, for two of the four sites which
have signs on them already unless the property is
rezoned. As mentioned in the previous paragraph,
Mr. Gillham feels there is basis for rezoning, other
than merely for allowing his billboards to exist..
It should be pointed nut. that our consulting planner,
Howard Dahlgren & Assoriates, is reviewing the e•nt.ire
c i t.y along with the ordev ly annexed area and the re-
commeudvd usage of this land according to the pro-
posed comprehensive plan is commercial.
POSSI IILI7 ACTION: Consideration of recommendation to
city council to rezone land in question. Public
hearing notice indicated entire area under considrral,iun,
if less than the entire area is rezoned, a ce-rtificate
of survey should be revolved on any portion rezoned.
RLTERENCBS: Enclosed map depict inn area; Planninn report
from Howard Dahlaren & Associates.
Agenda ]tem 3. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments - Pylon Signs.
Howard Dahlgren & Associates were requested to review
the pylon sign ordinance by the city council.
At the Planning Commission's October 19, 1976 meeting,
our planner's were requested to study the possibility
of developing sign requirements for freeway oriented
businesses.
Enclosed, you will find a planning report from Dahl-
gren & Associates relative to this issue.
You will note the fist amendment "liberalizes" to
some extent the sizetheight of pylon signs due to
the 115 MPH" incremental changes.
The second amendment, would allow "freeway standard"
signs for certain land uses within 800 feet of the
freeway even though they may not directly abut such
a highway. This would allow those businesses (pro-
vided they are a listed land use) which do not abut
a freeway but have exposure from the freeway to
erect signs within the freeway classification.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amendments.
REFERENCES: Planning report prepared by Dahlgren &
Associates.
A— oda Item q. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments - Landscauina
Requirements.
Enclosed, please find it planning report, from Howard
Dahlgren & Assoc. relative to landscaping requirements.
'['his planning report, was prepared after there was
some discussion at, the council and planning commission
level relative to the existing landscaping require-
ments. Currently, Section 10-3-2-(F)-5 reads as
follows:
In all zoning districts the lot, area remaining
alter providing for off-street parking, off-
street loading, sidewalks, driveways, hoilding
site and/or other requirement's sha11 be planted
and maintained in grass, suddiIla, shrubs or other
acceptai1)1e vegetation ur treatment generally
used in landscaping. Fences or trees placed upon
ut'ilit'y easements are subject to removal it' re-
quived for the maintenance or Improvement of the
utility. 'frees un utility easements runl.ainilia
overhead wires shall not, exceed ton (10) feet, in
height..
This section does not require any specific portion
of landscaping be devoted to shrubbery and has no
requirements relative to off-street parking areas.
These items are mentioned in the planning report
and give the requirements of the city of Roseville
as an example.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amending ordinance
to require specific landscaping requirements in
terms of shrubbery and parking areas.
REFERENCES: Dahlgren & Assoc. planning report.
ME
pc_
HOWARDDAHLOREN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING PLANNERS
JNE G40�l '.D
... CC
rn.+[.sO �S, w.♦•.[6J'. 69.01
OeLemhe.• 10, 1976 .+.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission, City of Monticello
RE: Rezoning request: Howard Gillham Property
i.
Existing. Conditions: The subject property is approximately 65 acres
zoned R-1. Single Family Residential. located at the southeast corner
of the County Highway 39 and Interstate 94 overpass.
2.
Current City Plan: The current City Plan proposes a new thorough-
fare, a city park. single family residential. and multiple family
residenital development for the subject property.
3.
OAA Plan Proposal: As you are aware. the Orderly Annexation Area
Hoard is preparing a plan proposal for the OAA. The new plan
proposal has not been approved by the OAA Board and it has not been
reviewed or approved by the City Planning Commission or City Council.
The preliminary plan for the OAA proposes a full interchange with
County Highway 39 and Interstate 94, commercial development south
of County Highway 39 paralleling Interstate 94 to the existing
interchange. In other words. Mr. Gillham's rezoning proposal would
conform with the new preliminary OAA Pian.
4.
Rezoning Policy.: Generally speaking. there are two policies which
tt e- ty-may consider in rezoning applications. First, some
communities rezone the entire community at the time of adoption
of the official Comprehensive Plan. This policy makes the private
landowner aware of the development restrictions and standards by
which he must develop his property.
The second policy used by some communities is to adopt an official
Comprehensive Plan, but refrain from rezoning until the urivate land
developer has a specific development proposal. This policy allows
the conmunity an additional administrative review of development
proposals. However, this policy can create doubt and frustration for
the private landowner because he is unsure of the community's
intentinns. Such a policy can have a negative affect oti the overall
growth and development potential of the community.
'
Because our basic governmental system operates on a private, free
enterprise market, it is important that the private lanuowner be
fully aware of the City's development restrictions and Policies.
There should be little or no doubt as to what is expected of him
in the development of his property. Therefore, we recommend that
the City of Monticello adopt a policy of rezoning in accordance
Planning Commission
December 10, 1976 Page Two
with the standards and policies of the official Comprehensive Plan
at the time of the adoption or amendment of the official plan.
5. Rezoning Request: Mr. Gillham's rezoning request conforms with
the new plan proposal. However, it is important to point out that
the OAA Board has not adopted this plan and the City of Monticello
has not reviewed or approved this plan. Therefore, the City may
wish to postpone consideration of the rezoning request until the
new plan proposal has been thoroughly reviewed and approved.
The important questions regarding this particular rezoning request
concern the development of the interchange with County Highway 39
and Interstate 94. Although such an interchange is proposed, the
interchange will not be developed for many years. Commercial
development of the Gillham property and the area south of Interstate 94
is envisioned to be of a community scale, related to the interstate
Highway. Commercial development in this area most probably will
not occur until such an interchange is developed. A second concern
is the two existing single family residences within the rezoning
request. Commercial rezoning of thete propert{es may not be
necessary or desirable due to the effect on single family residential.
The new plan proposes commercial zoning between the interstate 94
and a new thoroughfare alignment. Therefore, it may not be necessary
to rezone the entire 65 acres. We would recommend that the road
alignment be established and rezoning between the thoroughfare and
the Interstate would be appropriate.
C HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING w L A N N C„ S
December 14, 1976 "'' ""OL`' r_. ss•o,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, City of Monticello
FROM: Howard Dahlgren Associates, Inc.
RE: Sign Ordinance - Pylon Signs
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the existing
sign ordinance as it relates to pylon signs and the freeway commercial
development. We have reviewed this question, approaching it from
several angles. The apparent problem is that the zoning code controls
pylon size and height by the official road classification that the
subject property has access to. This control formula has apparently
caused some questions for business with access onto thorougyhfares but
their main business is drawn from the freeway (Interstate 94).
The area around the Interstate 94 interchange is zoned B-3, Highway
Business District, which is designed for freeway oriented business.
A recent application for a motel presented a request for a variation
from the current 26 foot height limitation which was based on the
motel's location on Highway 25, south of Interstate 94 interchange.
The applicant claimed that the 20 foot height limitation would not be
adequate to attract business from the freeway. This may indeed have
been the case for the property concerned.
As one method of confronting this problem, we suggest the City consider
two amendments to the Zoning Code. First, the road classification system
of Section 10 -3 -9 -E -1-B-4 should be amended as follows:
i�
SPEED
AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
(MPJ
(SO. FT.)_ FEET
Collector
30
25 16
35
50 20
40
100 24
Major Thoroughfares
30
50 18
35
100 22
40
125 24
45
150 :E
50
175 28
Freeways and
55
200 32
Expressways
and
above
i�
Pldnninq Commission. City of Monticello
December 14, 1976 Pane Two
The above road cldssification scheme was taken directly from the
Burnsville Zoning Code. The principal differences between this and
the Monticello Code are the "5 MPH" incremental changes in the
pylon sign size for the Major Thoroughfares. For example, the
Burnsville Ordinance allows 125 square foot sign with a 24 font heicht
for a 40 mile do hour road classification and a 170 square foot sinn
with a 28 foot height for a 50 mile an hour road classification. T+•e
freeway sign size is the same but the height is 32 feet instead of
30 feet.
The second suggested amendment would be to allow "freeway standard
signs" (200 suudre foot area and 32 foot height) for certain land uses n
within 800 feet of the freeway. For example, the properties which
fall 8,00 feet from the Interstate 94 right-of-way would be elinible
for d sign of up to 200 square feet with a 32 foot height. This
"bonus" should not be available to every small business or industry.
The objeZ_t_of this segregation policy would be to give a bonus
to those land uses which are of sufficient size and which are °reeway
oriented. A suggested list of land uses inlcude: O�
✓Full service car agency, 10Y'✓Hotel or motel Z, &*-4f
Restaurant, minimum 4,000 square feet gross floor area
yFinancial institutions5000
dhopping centers -5000 Stt�`� ow •""`
Free-standing retail use, minimum gross floor area of 5,000
square feet
✓full service motor fuel stations -
Recreational buildings, minimum gross floor area 5,000 sou3re
+eet
�lndustrial uses, minimum gross floor area of 10,00 souare -'eet
Suth an mnendment would be included in the pylon scan section .` the
ordinance.
I-V
i HOWARD DANLGREN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING PLANNERS
a n .CC
-•'.•+C cel, �'S." .. ^. C'v fit•• SS�O`
December 1U, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, City of Monticello
RE: Landscaping Requirements
At its previous meeting, the Planning Commission discussed minimum
landscaping requirements. We have reviewed the standards and regulations
of several suburban communities and we feel the requirements of the
City of Roseville represent the best standards for landscaping. The
City of Roseville has a special zoning district which has the following
minimum standards:
1. Front yard setback of 30 feet.
2. Side yard setback of 30 feet from any street right-of-way
and 10 feet from any other lot line.
3. No off-street parking within 15 feet of any street right-
of-way, nor five feet from any other lot line.
G. No exterior storage or exterior display of merchandise.
5. All buildings shall be finished on all four sides with
consistent architectural quality, materials, and design.
6. Three percent of the service area within an off-street
parking area shall be landscaped with grass and/or
decorative surface treatment, trees, and shrubbery.
7. Parking areas and drives shall be curved with free -
cast or poured in place curbing.
In addition to these seven requirements, we would recommend that "tr0
percent of the developmunt costs as determined by the buildin- permit
valuation be devoted to landscaping, exclusive of sod and waleways••.
The minimum landscaping requirements of (1) three percent of f -street
parking area devoted to landscaping; and (2) two percent of d..elopment
costs devoted to landscaping, are appropriate standards for o f urian
scale development (except single family residential). These •..e
standards could be included in the general provisions of the ..ning
ordi,lance• The Roseville standards could be included in the ,'ovisions
for the business and multiple residential development section;.