Loading...
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;.