Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-04-1992AGENDA
i REGULAR NKETZNG - MONlICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 4, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard
Carlson, and Cindy I,emm
7:00 pm 1.
Call to order.
7:02 pm 2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
Janury 7, 1992.
7:04 pm 3.
Approval of minutes of the regular meet inq held
February 4, 1992.
7:06 pm 4.
Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a warehouse building within the
front, rear, and side yard setback requirements.
Applicant, J.M. Oil Company.
7:25 pm 5.
Public Hearing --Consideration of approval of a
preliminary plat of phase II of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, Value
Plus Homes.
7:50 pm 6.
Public Hearing --A rezoning request to rezone an
unplatted tract of land to be platted as phase II,
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision plat, from
AO (agriculture -open space) to R-1 (single family
residential) zoning. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
8:00 pm 7.
Tabled Public Hearing --Consideration of approving
amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed
In conjunction with the Chelsea Area Planning Study
changing the Thomas Park area zoning from B-2
(limited business) to I-1 (light industrial).
Additional Information Items
8:20 pm 1.
Consideration of a resolution adopting amendments
to the City of Monticello Comprehensive Land Use
Plan in conjunction with the Chelsea Area Land Use
Study. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council
action: Approved as par Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:22 pm 2.
Consideration of approving amendments to the zoning
map of Monticello proposed in conjunction with the
Chelsea Area Planning Study. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council action: Approved as per
7
Planning Commission recommandatLon.
Planning Commission Agenda
March 4, 1997
Page 7
8:74 pm 3. Consideration of establishing a business campus
zoning district which provides for establishment of
limited light industrial business offices, limited
light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms, retail
uses in an environment which provides a high level
of amenities, including landscaping, preservation
of other natural features, architectural controls,
and other features. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
8:76 pm 4. Consideration of a request to rezone a 13 -acre
portion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3
(highway business) to a combination of PSM
(performance zone mixed - S acres) and B-7 (limited
business - 7 acres). Applicant, Evangelical
Covenant Church. Council action: Denied as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
8:78 pm S. Consideration of a variance request to allow
construction of a building addition within the rear
and side yard setback requirements. Applicant,
4 Michael and Kathleen Proslle. Council actions no
action required, as the request did not come before
them.
8:30 pm 6. Conaideration of adopting an ordinance amendment to
Section 17-7 of the City of Monticello Zoning
Ordinance which would allow a convenience store to
operate as a permitted use in a B-7 zone.
Applicant, City of Monticello. Council actions
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:37 pm 7. Review Cardinal Mille development sketch plan.
Applicant, Value Plus Homes. Council actions
Recommendation follows the Planning Commission
recommendation to proceed with the development of
preliminary plat plane.
834 pm S. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, April 8,
1997, 700 p.m.
8:36 pm 9. Adjournment.
a
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 4, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, John Bogart,
Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Bret Weise
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
7:07 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held
December 3, 1991. These minutes were already approved at the
January meeting. No action required.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adoptinq
amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive Land Use
Plan in conjunction with the Chelsea Area Land Use Study.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that
Included in the Planning Commission members' agenda packet was
the final report by Northwest Associated Consultants. O'Neill
noted that concerns have been brought up within those by the
Industrial Development Committee and the Housing Redevelopment
Authority with the development of the north half of the Kline
property which Is located in the township. These two bodies
would like to see this area preserved for industrial
development, as the planning study shows this area for medium
density residential use. O'Neill noted that a resolution has
been drafted in response to this concern.
Mr. O'Neill explained that in a later agenda item, the
Planning Commission members will be asked to consider a
rezoning request by the Covenant Church for development of a
church within the proposed B-2 zoning near the intersection of
County Road 118 and Chelsea Road. This proposed rezoning
would ask that this piece be rezoned to 5 acres of business
campus zoning on the westerly portion of it. The center
portion to have the 5 acres PEM (performance zone mixed)
zoning to accommodate the church development with the
remaining 7 acres to the east being proposed to be left as B-2
(limited business zoning).
Mr. Steve Grittman, planner with Northwest Associated
Consultants, explained in detail the different aspects of the
report, and they are as follows:
Page I
C3�
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/94
1.
Phvsical Issues
A.
Annexation
B.
Transportation
C.
Drainageway
D.
Trail System
E.
Utility Easement
4.
Existing
Zonina/Lend Use
A.
School Property
B.
Heavy Industrial Uses
C.
Light Industrial Land
D.
Commercial Land
E.
Agricultural Open Space
F.
Residential Planned Unit Development
G.
The Orderly Annexation Area
3.
Leaque
Development Plan
A.
Circulation Plan
a. 92nd Street HE Extension (School Boulevard)
b. Frontage Road System
c. Termination of Thomas Park Drive
d. Fallon Avenue Overpass
e. County Road 118/Interstate 94 Interchange
4.
Proposed Land Use
A.
School Property
B.
Heavy Industrial Land Usos
C.
Light Industrial Land Uses
D.
Commercial Land Uses
E.
Medium/High Density Residential Land Uses
F.
Single Family Land Uses
G.
Residential Planned Unit Developmont
H.
Special Sites
Mr. Bret Weiss, City Engineer, explained to tho Planning
Commission that a storm water sewer study was done In
conjunction with the land use study. The storm water study
includes all of the area when its fully developed for the 100 -
year flood event with a 1t chance of this 100 -year flood event
occurring.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for Input from the
public. Mr. Duane Schultz, property owner of the Fingerhut
lease space building in the Thomas Park Addition, brought up
Page l
6)
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/92
concerns regarding changing the zoning from B-2 (limited
business) zoning to I-1 (light industrial) zoning in the area
around his property. Mr. Steve arlttman explained that the
proposed change would enlarge the industrial zone into this
area and it would also limit the traffic with congestions at
the Chelsea Road/East Oakwood Drive intersection. Mr. Shultz
countered that the small lots in the Thomas Park development
would encourage smaller development with business uses rather
than industrial uses, which would require additional land or
grouping of lots to accommodate industrial type development.
Mr. Jay Morrell, owner of M S P Transport Company in the
Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, explained that industrial
I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning is limited as it exists today.
Previous planning had called for buffer zones around the heavy
industrial zoning, and now we are doing rezoning because of
the placement of the new elementary school in its close
proximity to the heavy Industrial zoning. Mr. Morrell also
brought up concerns on the traffic. His company has 35 semi -
truck tractors coming in and out of his property every day.
With the development of the school plus the residential
traffic that would be utilizing the new elementary school,
there may be a conflict with increased traffic. His concerns
were that traffic should dictate the proposed land use plans.
Mr. Jim Haglund, representing the Covenant Church, commented
that the proposed location for the church in the existing B-2
zone near the intersection of County Road 118 and Chelsea Road
was a much better place for a church than the areas being
proposed, the low areas where drainage ponds should take
place.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission members quoetioned whether the Thomas
Park zoning should be changed or if it should be loft the way
it Is.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by
Jon Bogart to adopt the resolution accepting the planning
report and adopting the report as a comprehensive plan
amendment document. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 1992-2.
Page 3
(D3
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/4/92
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of establishing a Business
Campus zoning district which provides for establishment of
limited light industrial business offices, limited light
manufacturing, wholesale showrooms, retail uses in an
environment which provides a hiqh level of amenities„
Including landscapinq, preservation of natural features,.
architectural controls, and other features.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the
proposed business campus district zoning and the uses that
would be allowed within this new zoning district. Mr. Steve
Grittman, planner with Northwest Associated Consultants,
explained that this is a slightly upscale type of zoning. The
zoning uses are consistent with the uses allowed in an I-1
zoning and would allow for a development complementary to new
projects that were constructed, the Remmele and Tapper
building projects. This type of zoning would allow
development in a campus -like setting.
Chairperson Den McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. McConnon then closed the public hearing
and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
There being no input from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the establishment of a business campus zoning
district. The Planning Commission finds that establishment of
the BC zoning district is consistent with the comprehensive
plan amendment. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of approving amendments to the
zonlnq map of Monticello proposed in conjunction with the
Chelsea Area Planninq Study. Applicant, Citv of Monticello.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explainod the throe
areas that were proposed to bo rezoned, and they are as
follows
A. The Thomas Park Addition rezoned from B-2 (limited
business) to I-1 (light industrial zoning).
B. The major portion of land lying east of Fallon Avenue
from I-1 (light industrial), B-2 (limited business), and
B-] (highway business) to BC (business campus) zoning.
C. The land northwest of the Intersection of County Road 118
and Chelsea Road rezoned from 9-3 (highway business) to
B-2 (limited business).
Pape 4
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/92
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for Input from the
public.
Duane Schultz, owner of the Fingerhut leased space building,
objected to the I-1 zoning of the Thomas Park Addition in
which this building is located. There has been a substantial
Investment by his firm In this property, and It is taxed
accordingly. He fears allowing light industrial zoning into
that area could diminish the value of his property. It was
noted to him by O'Neill that the site standards for I-1 and
B-2 uses are the same.
Mr. Jay Morrell questioned the BC (business campus) zoning
uses. It was explained to Mr. Morrell that the business uses
are the same as what is in I-1 zoning only more restrictive
architectural controls. Morrell stated he had no problem with
the proposal.
Chairperson Dan Mcconnon closed the public hearing and opened
the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members.
Concerns were addressed by the Planning Commission members and
a suggestion to table the Thomas Park rezoning was made at
this time.
With no further input from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to
approve amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the Chelsea Area Planning Study. The motion
to adopt the zoning map changes based on the finding that the
zoning map amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan amendment. Planning Commission members would like to
have the Thomas Park rezoning area tabled until the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday,
March 3, 1992. The motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearinq--Consideration of request to rezone a 12 -acre
portion of Auditor's Subdivision. Lot 17. from B-3 (highway
business) to a combination of PZM (performance zone mixed - 9
acres) and B-2 (limited business - 7 acresl. Applicant.
Evangelical Covenant Church.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the
Covenant Church's request at the suggestion of the City
Council to come up with some additional land to Increase the
land area to be purchased and also to push the proposed church
facility and the rezoning farther east along Chelsea Road.
O'Neill explained that the proposed zoning, which was rezoned
from B-3 (highway business) to B-2 (limited business) zoning
7
Page 9
C3 i
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/92
In a previous agenda item, deals with a total of approximately
17 acres of land. The zoning as proposed by the Covenant
Church would encompass the westerly most portion of the 5
acres to become rezoned to BC (business campus) zoning, the
center 5 acres to be rezoned from B-2 (limited business) to
PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning to accommodate the church
development, and the remaining easterly 7 acres to be left as
B-2 zoning.
Mr. Steve Grittman explained that if the rezoning was to
occur, it would be as presented by the Covenant Church, and it
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public.
Mr. Jim Haglund, Covenant Church Development Coordinator,
showed the Planning Commission a copy of the proposed zoning
for the land development of the easterly 12 acres of land.
Within this development he showed a 5 -acre piece for PZM
zoning to accommodate the church facility, and the remaining
easterly 7 acres would be subdivided into four lots consisting
of over one acre per piece, with a road coming In to service
the church from this proposed subdivision to create the B-2
Iota.
Pastor Mick Scott explained that a church facility is
appropriate in this type of zone, as it meets the church
needs, it moved back with the location far enough from County
Road 118, and as their plan shows would accommodate four lots
to be developed as B-2 zoning.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bret Weiss, City Engineer, explained that MN/DOT may be
Interested in an exit ramp at County Road 118. He indicated
that there are funds available for highway development.
There was discussion among Planning Commission members with
some feeling that it definitely wasn't an appropriate use of
the existing B-2 zoning for the location of a church facility
and that there are other areas within the community that have
the proper zoning to accommodate a church facility. A couple
of Planning Commission members felt that this might be an
appropriate use for the development of a church if this site
were further removed from the Intersection of County Road 118
and Chelsea Road.
Page 6
C31)
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/92
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Richard Carlson to deny the proposed zoning request based on
previous following findings:
1. Commercial uses displaced by the church cannot be
relocated without encroaching on residential areas.
2. Development of a church imbedded between commercial and
industrial uses Is not desirable.
3. The best use for the property is for commercial use
because of the proximity to the freeway and due to its
separation from residential uses.
4. The B-3 property remaining at the corner (7 acres) after
the rezoning is insufficient to satisfy long-term demand
for commercial land in the area.
5. The need for the rezoning has not been sufficiently
demonstrated, as other land is available for this type of
use.
The motion carried. Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Richard
Carlson, and Jon Bogart. Voting against: Dan McConnon and
Cindy Lemm.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow
construction of a buildinq addition within the rear and side
yard setback requirements. Applicant, Michael and Kathleen
Froalie.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the
Froslies' request to be allowed to construct a building
addition within 15 feet of the rear yard setback and to within
1 foot of the side yard setback requirement. The building
when constructed in the early 1980's was allowed to be built
within 15 feet of the rear property line.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for Input from the
public.
Kathleen Froslie Indicated she would like to extend up to the
side property line with the construction of the building
addition and come forward to allow the construction of her
building addition. She felt that it would be an appropriate
use, and that there wouldn't be any problem with building the
additlnn within the side yard setback, as there is only a
dumpster there and would not interrupt any part of garbage
pick up in the Dalry Queen dumpater area.
Pago 7
C 3�
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/92
Chairperson Dan McConnon closed the public hearing and opened
the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by
Cindy Lemm to approve the variance request to allow a building
addition to be constructed within 15 feet of the rear yard of
the property and to deny the variance request to allow the
building addition to be constructed within 0 feet of the side
yard property line.
Reason for approval of the variance was that the building when
constructed in the early 1980's was already allowed to be
constructed within 15 feet of the rear property line=
therefore, to make the building addition come within the
minimum setback requirement now would be too much of a burden,
and it would look out of place with the development of the
proposed addition.
Reason for denial of the aide yard variance is that there
would not be sufficient room to accommodate movement between
the dumpster area and the proposed building addition. It
would not allow sufficient room to accommodate grading of the
property from the building addition to the side property line
o and to accommodate drainage around the building. No hardship
had been demonstrated. The motion carried unanimously.
8. Public Hearinq--ConsideratLon of adopting an ordinance
amendment to Section 12-2 of the City of Monticello Zoninq
Ordinance which would allow a convenience store to operate as
a permitted use in a B-2 zone. Applicant. City of Monticello.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to the
Planning Commission and the public that when the City Council
approved the zoning ordinance amendment change to allow a
convenience store In a B-1 zone as a conditional use, it
Inadvertently eliminated the permitted uses in a B-1 zone
which state that the permitted uses in a B -i zone aro also
permitted in a B-2 zone.
Chairperson Dan McConnon thon opened the meeting for Input
from the public. There being no Input from the public,
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing.
There being no further comments from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Cindy Lem and seconded by Dan
McConnon to adopt the amendment to section 12-2 of the City of
Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow a convenience
store to oporato as a permit ted use in a B-2 zone. Approval
Page 8
0-i
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/4/92
of the ordinance amendment is based on the finding that it was
not the Monticello City Council's intent to eliminate the
convenience store from the B-2 zone. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. Review Cardinal Hills Development Sketch Plan.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the
proposed sketch plan review of the Cardinal Hills residential
development. Mr. O'Neill explained to the Planning Commission
members the City Staff's concerns with the review. They are
as follows:
1. Park Land Development. The total acreage of the plat is
109.09 acres of which 101 of the land area is to be
dedicated to park land development. This would amount to
approximately 11 acres of land for park land dedication.
The developers are proposing a small portion of land for
park land development. They are asking for consideration
of land to be used for proposed ponding areas be also
considered as park land dedication.
2. with the layout of the development along the proposed new
street to the north of this development, that being
School Boulevard, we still end up with some lots that are
double fronting.
3. The proposed ponding areae that are being created caused
concerns on who is to maintain them because the lot lines
go straight through them. Are they going to be allowed
to store things within the ponding areas if the water
level is low, how are these things to be addressed.
4. The other concern was the cul -desacs as laid out. Could
they possibly be eliminated in their entirety, as
existing cul -do -sacs in the City of Monticello are very
expensive to maintain, primarily in the snow removal
season.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public.
Mr. Steve Grittman, consulting planner with Northwest
Consultants, commented on tho development of cul -do -sacs
within the proposed sketch plan. Cul-de-sacs are used as part
of development to accommodate additional sometimes larger
Iota. With the accommodation of cul-de-sacs within a proposed
development, it does break up the usual layout of streets
being platted in a typical rectangular development. The
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
development of cul -desacs is very expensive for the public
works department to maintain, especially in the snow removal
season. Cul-de-sac development within a residential
subdivision plat, if approved, may be determined by the City
Council that their design may outweigh the increased costs for
public works maintenance.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for
Input from the Planning Commission members.
The Planning Commission members commented that the cul-de-sac
development might be needed to accommodate larger lots for
possible upscale housing within this development with no
guarantees from the developer that this may occur. The cul-
de-sacs presented are minimal In size and in total numbers
they have proposed within this plat.
Park land dedication should occur within the area that is
proposed with possibly an increased area within this proposed
site to eliminate the number of lots with the back yards or
side yards abutting this park land.
i Road development around the park should occur on at least two
sides as minimum, If possible, three sides of the park land
development should be surrounded by street access.
Consideration of additional park land dedication be considered
on the east portion of this plat as further phases get
developed, smaller areas be developed as this special use type
park development. Planning Commission members expressed their
comments and asked the developers to incorporate those
comments into their preliminary plat proposal.
10. It was the consensus of the five Planning Commission members
to set the next date of the Planning Commission meeting for
Tuesday, March ], 1997, 7:00 p.m.
11. Meeting adjourned at 10101 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 10
C?
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of a
warehouse building within the front, rear, and side yard
setback requirements. Avolicant. J.M. Oil Conmanv,. (G.A.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
J.M. Oil Company, a local bulk fuel distributor, is proposing
to remove their existing 16 -foot X 38 -foot warehouse and
loading dock structure and replace it with a 38 -foot X SO -toot
warehouse/truck storage building. Although the building is in
the proper zone, it is a non -conforming structure because it
does not meet setback requirements.
The property is currently zoned I-2 (heavy industrial). This
Is the appropriate zoning to accommodate this type of
business, which is located on railroad leased property. The
problem is that these leased Burlington Northern properties
have a very short depth of only 100 feet= therefore, if a
structure was to be built to meet the minimum front and rear
yard setbacks, there could be no buildings constructed at all,
as they would fall within the setback requirements.
J.M. Oil Company is proposing to remove the existing
warehouse/ loading dock structure and replace it with a new,
larger warehouse/truck storage building, which would be
located right up to the rear property line. As proposed on
the site plan, the structure would not encroach within the
front yard setback but would only encroach within the rear and
side yard setbacks.
Planning Commission members have a judgment call to make in
this situation in that the zoning is proper for this type of
business, but the land area does not allow a structure to be
built on it, as the structure would fall either within the
front or rear yard setback requirements, as 50 feet is the
minimum rear and front yard setback requirement. The Planning
Commission could choose to table this variance request for
further research to see if the business owners on this leased
land would consider relocating to another I-2 (heavy
Industrial) area where there would be sufficient land to allow
the relocation of tanks and a warehouse/truck storage building
and still meet the minimum setback requirements, therefore
requiring no variance. However, with the I-2 zoning in place
at the current business location, we may be challenged In a
court of law for the zoning of this property, even though it
is leased property, for an I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning with
the current setbacks which would not allow any type of
development of structures to be placed on there without going
through the variance process.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
There may be a question of possible soil and ground water
contamination from petroleum products spilled in this general
area over the years. It may be the proper time to further
investigate the area before allowing expanded use. The City
also needs time to further investigate what upgrades need to
be made (if any) to the existing facilities to have them
comply with all local, state, and federal codes.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
warehouse building within the rear and side yard setback
requirements. Reason for approval is that a) it will not
Impair adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent
property; b) it will not create an unreasonable
congestion increase in the public street; c) it will not
Increase the danger of the fire or endanger the public
safetyl d) it will not unreasonably diminish lroperty
values within the neighborhoods and e) it will .,ut be
contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The variance Is
needed because the property, due to its unique
configuration, is not developable without one.
Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
warehouse building within the rear and side yard setback
requirements. Motion is based on the finding that a
hardship does not exist.
Table the variance request to allow City staff to work
with the applicant to look at possible alternatives in
regard to relocation of the existing tanks to an 1-2 zone
that has sufficient land area to accommodate site
development without a variance.
STAFF RECO)MNDATIONs
City staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the
request at this time. City staff would like to work with the
applicant to explore all possible alternatives for relocation
to a new I-2 (heavy industrial) area, which would allow
development of this business in an area which has sufficient
land to accommodate site development without requiring any
variances from the ordinance. We think positive results will
come out of this in that we would have one of the three
remaining bulk fuel facilities relocated to an area where they
can further develop their property on an approved site.
Improvements will have to be made by 1996 to the applicant's
existing facility and also the Jeff Michaelis facility
immediatoly west of the applicant's facility to moot the now
state regulations. Another positive aspect would be if
relocation was to occur, we would possibly take the overnight
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/99
parking of these fuel trucks out of one residential area and
one business area where existing housing is already around it
and place the truck storage into an area that allows truck
storage. The applicant and the adjoining property to the west
businesses are currently located out of their home, which
results in parking of these fuel storage trucks in the
driveways of their existing residences, which technically is
In violation of the ordinance sections governing operation of
home occupations.
An overall study of the old railroad switching yard area
should be completed to look at the City's long-range plane for
the ultimate development of this area and the area which
surrounds the applicant's facility.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copies
of the site plan; Copy of the proposed new warehouse/truck
storage building; Copy of the railroad leased space map.
1
cttoll ot
C'eAstcu 'eat.
,Vast to 6110" t3NO Uont.
UCO j,%.djng vith tceoamto.
house Clt c
6 ,are at 6 got Otl C Oy
,.do Y 3.14.
vrl Ift
"AY
NO. 94
L
UL..
I
JM OIL CO., INC.
i rSTANDARD OIL PRODUCTS
1
93"W4
MONTICELLO. MN 56.382
18121296.2328
Al_ ..U..�� .
CI
oq
W
s
r
0
i
"7 � a.n pyre et�r a��e C
��4 1 1. 6 3 � ¢� �� ^ E•°3a1 f°
f 1`'►3° ri �,f'*¢ ';i gyp► f+' �`' i �����.��.�►��,�
N
�
� t
f
13
jilt
oaK
1n ;
0:
z
o�
D:
m;
N'
rg
JM OIL CO., INC.
STANDAR OIL PRODUCTS
eoxfim
MWCEuo. Mm.
f+ d Ao /9911
S l ?E Pel a N
<,T k-
30,
-3O, yo so �\ CURB s "A 3TR��T
Aff0x/4PaTE
SC��c
KEY
= So
r r -- f0----
i
38 :38
ora wae•No�,.
d DsaK
cq)
LINN, \ I
�t - -- ------ t
I` A�
n111,r_ I I 0 ml r
:2 4v
3
LOCUST Y,/4p .I N..1a•/Iq t I r
mesew our
V-1-1 Pwl. \ ------
1 I �
�� � �_• 1 { � 111 , 'I I =
R�3� :��� r• ;��5 `�----ail I ��'.� I�
��r '�F V I t '+ I I• .�
t��q �`� .na !i��,V_. �bl ��{IIS r,,.l•
1 , I• jjj
M� aI •li"'1q »I �_\ .:_. —alit
WALNUT icfrllo..'YE:'°.d/iS''$ •1 •.atl. _. �.t
I,r,rM F.,.w Yr .rte. 1
�Y•111»yl1M ' 1 1
.SGn.le.. � 1 ,rL.•- fliiw�i�h �r,J:rr.. .. . .I ,y
but
PINEa�' nro.rar r.v:Y.q I "
1 •lCa 47-41 rI
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
5. Public Hearin --Consideration of approval of preliminary Qlat
of Phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision.
Applicant, Value Plus Homes. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to review the preliminary plat of
the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision and consider
recommending approval of the preliminary plat as proposed.
Following is a site plan review:
General Information
Phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision Is a
23 -acre site that calls for development of 2 roadways and 50
residential lots. This phase also includes development of a
3 -acre park and a ponding area approximately 2 acres in size.
City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in detail and has
found that the design of the plat is consistent with the
subdivision ordinance.
Adloinino Land Uses
There do not appear to be any conflicts between development of
phase II of the Cardinal Hills subdivision and adjoining land
uses. To the north of the site is School Boulevard which will
likely be constructed within the next year to three years.
The phase II development area now under consideration will not
have immediate road access to School Boulevard until a
subsequent phase is developed. The northern half of the
western boundary of phase II is phase I of Cardinal Hills
development. The southern one-half of the western boundary is
bounded by the farm property owned by John Leerssen. To the
south of the site is land use for agricultural purposes as
well. To the east of the site is the balance of the land
owned by Value Plus developers. This land will be farmed
until it is developed for residential uses.
Park Development
The park dedication requirement for the entire 109 -acre
development area is about 10.5 acres. The plan calls for
development of a 3 -acre passive park area with phase II and a
.LJ -acre park in the east central portion of the plat to be
developed with a later phase. The remaining 6.25 acres will
be given to the City in the form of a cash equivalent. The
school facilities will provide an active recreation area for
people that will live in this area.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
The Parke Commission reviewed the park plan for the entire
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision and was comfortable
with the park area dedicated with phase II and was comfortable
with the future plane for development of a park located in the
east central portion of the plat.
Following Is an excerpt from the Parka Commission discussion
at their meeting held February 19, 1992, regarding Cardinal
Hills subdivision:
"The Parke Commission reviewed the Cardinal Hills sketch
plan. Dick Frie mentioned that the developers are
planning on interspersing phase I type homes with higher
valued homes. Frie indicated that the developers will
have access to a new home funding program through FHA.
This program has a loan limit of $107,000. Also, the
developers indicated to him that they will be building
custom homes as well. Frie indicated that he had visited
an FHA development in St. Michael and found that low—end
FHA homes and custom homes can be constructed side by
side and compliment each other."
"It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that Value
Plus Homes should strongly consider establishing a
housing mix and not limit their entire project to low—end
FHA homes."
"The Parke Commission reviewed the sketch plan dated
2/10/92 and concluded that park areae identified were
sufficient."
"After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and
seconded by Roger Carlson to approves the Cardinal Hills
park design proposal, which Includes a 3.5 -acre park
(north) and an approximate 1 -acre park east. The
remaining park dedication requirement is to be in the
form of cash. In addition, the wetland areae located
along the southern boundary of the plat should be
preserved as a nature area for the enjoyment of the
public. The total land used to calculate the park
dedication requirement should not include the wetland
area. Basements should be obtained that would allow the
general public to have access to the nature area. The
party responsible for trail development and maintenance
to to be established at a later date. Motion carried
unanimously."
As you can see, Lots 4, S, 6, 7, S, and 9 of Block 1, phase I,
and Late 1, 2, and 3 of Block 1, phase II, create a barrier
for people trying to walk from the development area to School
Boulevard and subsequently to the elementary school. The plan
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
as proposed attempts to overcome this barrier by channeling
pedestrian traffic along the eastern boundary of Lot 3,
Block 1, and through the proposed park. Staff is somewhat
concerned that requiring pedestrians to take this route may
not be the most natural course; therefore, there may be
problems with people cutting through Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 to
get to the elementary school. Planning Commission needs to
review this and determine to what extent it feels that this is
a problem and determine whether or not a walkway easement
needs to be obtained in a position in more direct alignment
with the elementary school driveway.
Roadways
Phase II will have a single access to Fallon Avenue via
Starling Drive, which will create a short-term problem by
limiting access to the development to a single access point.
It is the view of City staff that construction of phase III
will eliminate this problem; therefore, it is not considered
to be overly serious. It was suggested to the developers by
staff that phase II be adjusted to include development of the
roadway that's shown on the concept plan that connects to
School Boulevard. The developers did not like this idea
because the grading of the site can be done more efficiently
if it is constructed under the proposed phasing.
The four-way intersection of Starling Drive and Martin Drive
is not at a 90 -degree angle. It is our view that this Is not
necessarily a problem even though a large amount of traffic
will likely be using Starling Drive. It is likely that a stop
sign will need to be placed at this location to ensure the
safety of pedestrians crossing Starling Drive on their way to
the school and the park, and the stop sign will discourage the
use of Starling Drive as the primary route for exiting the
development.
The road names need to be established for the roadway that
n extends south of Starling Drive, and also the road names for
(;w" the cul-de-sacs need to be identified. This is a topic that
+, everyone seems to want to avoid. It anyone has a great idea
for road names, now Is the time to bring them up.
Storm Mater Manaaement
The storm water plan includes a storm water ponding area that
will ultimately be connected to a storm water system that
discharges water under School Boulevard and on to the school
district property. The development of phase II does not call
for completion of the entire storm water system at this time.
Phase II will witness completion of the storage area for
Planning Commission Agenda — 3/4/92
phase II and will provide for an overground outlet to a nearby
ponding area to the southeast of phase II. The central pond
In phase II is designed to handle the 100 -year event.
Individual lots along the ponding area actually extend into
the pond with the City obtaining an easement that extends into
individual parcels. Under this proposal, adjoining property
owners are responsible for maintenance of their property up to
the water line. The City maintains the right to enter the
pond area at any time for maintenance purposes if necessary.
Sanitary Sewer/Water Service
Both the sanitary sewer and water services will be provided
via service lines extended along the road right-of-ways.
Concept Plan/Subsequent Phasinq
Included with the preliminary plat is a description of the
proposed design of the balance of the property owned by Value
Plus. Phases I and II encompass approximately 30% of the
total development area. Although the balance of the
undeveloped area is well described in the sketch plan, there
still are a few issues that need to be resolved during
subsequent review processes. Some items that will need
further study include:
1. wetland Management. As you can see, there is a
relatively large wetland area on the southern
border of the property. This wetland area extends
Into the adjoining property to the south. The City
needs to determine how this area is to be managed.
Should the City acquire the property as a public
nature area and develop longer term plans for
creation of a park in conjunction with future
development to the south? or should the City
emphasise local ownership in the property within
the ponding area and disassociate itself from the
area making maintenance of the vegetation and
collection of any debris the responsibility of the
local homeowner and downplay the value of the site
as a nature area?
2. The planner working for the City has indicated that
limiting the development area to three access
points may create some problems In the future. It
to hie view that the City may want to look at
encouraging development of another access to School
Boulevard.
Ir
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/97
3. The concept plan does not show the proposed
location of walkway easements that may be needed
between properties. The City will need to
determine where the walkway easement should be
located and who should be building and maintaining
these walkways.
Development Schedule
Following is a brief review of the development schedule as
currently proposed:
March 3:
Planning Commission review and
recommendation on preliminary plat and
rezoning request.
March 6:
Value Plus Homes provides cash deposit in
en amount equal to conduct a feasibility
study.
March 9:
City Council considers approving
preliminary plat (unless Planning
Commission tables recommendation).
March 9:
City Council considers authorization to
conduct feasibility study.
March 10-70:
OSM conducts feasibility study.
March 70:
Value Plus/School place funds on deposit
equal to cost of plans.
March 73:
City Council adopts development
agreement, accepts School Boulevard
feasibility study and Value Plug
feasibility study, adopts rezoning
request, considers final plat, and orders
plans and spec's be prepared.
April 1
May 17: Site grading completed.
April 13: Council accepts plans and specifications
and authorises bid process.
May 8: Bid opening.
May 11: Council awards contract.
May 17: Construction phase begins. Project
should be completed by August 30, 1997.
e
D
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/1/92
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Notion to recommend that the preliminary plat of phase II
of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision be approved.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission Is
comfortable with the layout of the preliminary plat.
Perhaps a few adjustments could be made based on the
discuseion with the developers. Under this alternative,
the item would be sent directly to the City Council for
review on March 9.
Notion to recommend denial of approval of the preliminary
plat for phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision.
Under this alternative, Planning Commiseion could take
the position that they are not in agreement with the
design of the plat; therefore, it she :Id not be approved.
Under this alternative, the matter would proceed directly
to the City Council for consideration on the 9th of
Narch.
3. Notion to table further consideration of a recommendation
on phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision.
If by chance the Planning Commission would like to see
relatively major changes made to the phasing program or
It Planning Commission would like to see other changes
that should be reviewed prior to actual approval of the
preliminary plat, then Planning Commission could table
the matter and give the applicant time to take the plat
back to the drawing board for additional work.
Under this alternative, the developer would not be able
to place the item on the March 9 meeting of the City
Council= and unless the applicant asks for a special
meeting, the item could be deferred until the first
meeting of the Council in April.
C. STAFF RECONMENDATIOPit
City staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of phase II of Cardinal Hill@
residential subdivision. We would like to go on record as
noting our concern about allowing a single access without
having control over the land needed to create a second access.
By approving this plat and development as proposed, the City
Is somewhat exposed in that if development does not. occur at
a brisk pace, it may be some time before a second outlet to
t
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
this area is developed. It is our view, however, that the
need of the developers to develop the alto in a cost efficient
manner that meets their needs is more important than
developing a phase that allows immediate access to School
Boulevard with phase II. Perhaps the City can require a
temporary road easement that guarantees that the City has
control over the land necessary to create a second access to
the development.
The plan before you is the result of considerable effort by
the developer and City staff to come up with a design that is
cost efficient in terms of public improvement installation and
consistent with local ordinances governing park development
and subdivision design. City staff, therefore, supports the
preliminary plat as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATAt
Copy of the preliminary plat of phase II of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
6. Public Hearing --A resoniny rearrest to rezone an unplatted
tract of land to be platted as Phase Iit Cardinal Rills
residential subdivision plat, from AO Iagriculture-open space)
to R-1 (single family residential) zoning. Apollcant, Value
Plus Homes. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
in conjuction with the development process of phase II of
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision, the City must consider
rezoning the area from its present zoning of AO (agriculture -
open space) to R-1 (single family residential). It is not
proposed that the entire undeveloped portion of the Cardinal
Hills residential subdivision be rezoned to R-1 uses at this
time. The only portion being rezoned is phase II. It is
staff's view that the balance of the property should not be
rezoned until It is platted.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to recommend approval of the request to rezone
phase 1I of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision from
AO (agriculture -open space) to R-1 (single family
residential) uses. Rezoning of said property is
contingent on completion of the land subdivision process.
Notion to recommend approval of said rezoning is based on
the finding that the rezoning request is consistent with
the comprehensive plan for the city of Monticello and
consistent with the eubdivision policies contained within
the comprehensive plan.
T. Notion to deny approval of the request to rezone phase II
of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision from AO
(agriculture -open apace) to R-1 (single family
residential) uses.
C. STAFF RECONNENDATION:
staff recommends that Planning Commission select
alternative •1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
m
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/92
7. Tabled Public Rearing --Consideration of approving amendments
to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in coniunction with
the Chelsea Area Planninq Study changinq the Thomas Park area
zoning from B-2 (limited business) to I-1 (light industrial).
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the
commission reviewed the concept of amending the zoning
ordinance to allow industrial uses to be developed in the
Thomas Park area rather than the current B-2 (limited
commercial) uses. The concept of rezoning this property
stemmed from a request made by a property owner some time ago
and stemmed from the general review of the area completed in
conjunction with the Chelsea Corridor Study. This property
owner that suggested the rezoning had difficulty marketing his
property for 8-2 uses, as the area is generally isolated from
retail commercial activity and is therefore, not as
marketable for such uses. It was thought that by converting
the zoning to an I-2 use, there might be a better opportunity
to market this property and thus allow it to achieve its
highest and beet use. Despite his assertion that B-2 uses are
difficult to develop here, there is a beauty salon that
operates in this zone.
At one point, this property was zoned for industrial uses. It
was rezoned to the B-2 category for reasons not known at this
time. I will be digging through the archives to find out why
the property was zoned from industrial uses to B-2 and report
this to the Planning Commission at the meeting.
At the public hearing on February 4, 1992, a representative
from Fingerhut explained his concern regarding the proposed
rezoning. He was concerned that the types of uses that would
be developed In the area would not comploment his structure.
He was also concerned that the lot sizes of available lots in
the area are too small to accommodate I-1 uses. In response
to his question, the Planning Commission elected to table this
matter and requested that the City staff copy the appropriate
sections from the zoning ordinance governing the I-1 zone and
the B-2 zone. After reviewing the zoning ordinance in detail,
the Planning Commission would then be better able to make a
decision regarding the proper zoning for this property.
Attached for your review are the sections of the ordinance
that apply.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/93
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Notion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance
amendment which would rezone the Thomas Park area from
the present B-3 classification to the I-1 classification.
Under this alternative, the motion would be based on the
finding that rezoning the property to I-1 uses is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. It expands the
area in which industrial uses can occur without creating
negative impacts on adjoining properties, and the B-3
zoning classification is not appropriate given the poor
access to the site, thereby limiting the ability to use
this property for commercial uses as described in the B-3
district regulations.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is
convinced that the existing zoning district designation
is inappropriate and that the City should take action to
correct the problem. Also, under this alternative the
existing businesses in the area that are retail in nature
would be allowed to continue but would become lawful non-
conforming uses; therefore, they would be allowed to
continue to operate as is but would not be allowed to
expand.
3. Kotion to deny the rezoning request.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not
convinced that a change is needed at this time and there
is Insufficient cause to modify the zoning ordinance.
C. STAFF RECONKENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either deny the
rezoning or table the matter. Unfortunately, we have not had
time to really do a good thorough job of analyzing the
implications of rezoning this area as proposed. We will try
to do some better homework between now and the time that the
meeting is convened; however, at this time, we are not sure if
It makes sense to rezone this property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the B-3 district regulationei Copy of the I-1 district
regulations; Map showing area proposed for rezoning.
13
CHAPTER 12
"B-2" LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-1: Purpose
12-2: Permitted Uses
12-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
12-4: Conditional Uses
12-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-2, limited business, district
is to provide for low intensity retail or service outlets
which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or
services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are
to provide goods and services on a limited community market
scale and located in areas which are well served by collector
or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential
districts.
12-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2
district:
[A) All permitted uses as allowed in the B-1, neighborhood
business, district.
(B) Art and school supplies.
[C) Bakery goods and baking of goods for retail sales on the
premises.
[D] Bank, savings and loan, savings credit unions, and other
financial institutions.
(E) Bicycle sales and repair.
(F) Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, and
soft drinks.
[O) Camera and photograhic supplies.
[H) Commercial (leased) and professional offices.
(I) Delicatessen.
(J) Dry cloaning pickup and laundry pickup stations,
including Incidental repair and assembly but not
Including processing.
(K) Drug store.
[L) Florist shop.
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/1
[M]
Frozen food store but not including a locker plant.
[N]
Gift or novelty store.
[O]
Grocery, fruit, or vegetable store but not including
sales from moveable motorized vehicle.
[P]
Grocery, supermarket.
(Q]
Hardware.
[R]
Hobby store, including handicraft classes but not to
exceed fifteen (15) students.
(S]
Ice sales with storage not to exceed five (5) tons.
[T)
Insurance sales.
(U)
Locksmith.
(V]
Meat markot but not including processing for a locker
plant.
[W]
Medical and dental offices and clinics.
(X]
Paint and wallpaper sales.
i
�-
(Y)
Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales, and such
repair as are accessory use to retail establishment
permitted within this district.
(Z)
Public utility collection offices.
[AA)
Public garage.
(BB)
Real estate sales.
[CC]
Shoe repair.
(DD)
Glass sales and service.
(EE)
Professional and commercial offices.
[FF)
Jewelry store/watch repair.
12-31 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a B-2 districts
(A]
All pormitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-2
district.
12-41 CONDITIONAL USESs The following are conditional uses in a 8-2
districts )Requires a conditional use permit based upon
r
procedures sot forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.)
0
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 12/2
j [A]
Multiple family buildings provided that:
1. Development is compatible with existing and planned
use of the area and conflicts are not created
between commercial and residential use and
activities.
2. The lot, setback, and building requirements
outlined in Chapter 3, Sections 2, 3, and 4, of
this ordinance are complied with.
3. At least five hundred (500) square feet of useable
open space as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of
this ordinance is provided for each dwelling unit.
4. Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading
is provided in compliance with Chapter 3,
Sections 5 and 6.
5. The development is adequately served by a collector
or arterial street.
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
[B]
Governmental and public utility buildings and structures
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community provided that:
1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks and side yard
requirements are met.
2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and
landscaping is provided in accordance with
Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance.
3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(C]
Commorcial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
1,
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
O
12/3
CHAPTER 15
"I-1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
SECTION:
15-1: Purpose
15-2: Permitted Uses
15-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
15-4: Conditional Uses
15-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district
is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light
Industrial development.
15-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "I-1"
district:
(A)
Radio and television.
(B]
Research laboratories.
(C]
Trade school.
(D]
Machine shops.
(E)
Paint mixing.
(F]
Bus terminals and maintenance garage.
(G]
Warehouses.
(H)
Laboratories.
(I)
Essential services.
(J)
Governmental and public utility buildings.
(R)
Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, or treatment of
articles or merchandise.
(L]
Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and
molded rubber products.
(M]
Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances,
instruments, and devices.
(N)
Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products
using only previously pulverised clay and kilns fired
only by electricity or natural gas.
(O]
Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising
structure, light sheet metal products, including heating
and ventilation equipment.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15/1&
N
(1
L
[P] Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop.
[Q] Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning.
[R] Bottling establishments.
[S] Building material sales and storage.
(T] Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio.
[U] Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing.
[V] Cartage and express facilities.
(w] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of
manufacturing of paper and related products but not
processing of raw materials for paper production.
(X) Dry cleaning establishments and laundries.
(Y] Electric light or puwnr generating stations, electrical
and electronic products manufacture, electrical service
shops.
(Z] Engraving, printing and publishing.
[AA] Jewelry manufacturing.
(BB) Medical, dental, and optical laboratories.
[CC] Storage or warehousing.
[DD] wholesale business and office establishments.
15-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in an "I-1" district:
(A) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4"
district.
15-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an
"I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures sot forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
(A) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided
that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a
residential district, In compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. ���
IS/2`Y
XONTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [H), of this ordinance.
S. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
[BJ Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal
or an accessory use and including sales in or from
motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that:
1. Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment
rental connected with a principal use is limited to
thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting
residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [H), of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(CJ Industrial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
(D) Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls)
and bowling alloys.
(EJ Consignment sales provided that:
1. Sales and storage aro not to exceed 1,000 square
feet in area.
2. At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned
merchandise.
3. No auctions shall take place on the premises.
4. There shall be no outside storage.
D
moNTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15i3
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 are considered and
satisfactorily met.
6. The parking requirements of Chapter 3, Section 5,
are complied with in full.
(F) Automobile repair - major and/or minor:
1. The entire site other than that taken up by a
building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced
with a material to control dust and drainage which
Z
7. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
0. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance.
9. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are
subject to change when the Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request,
finds that the general welfare and public
betterment can be served as well or better by
modifying the conditions.
10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
MONTICEId.O ZONING ORDINANCE
0
1S/4
is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
2.
A drainage system subject to the approval of the
City Engineer shall be installed.
3.
The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as
to have no direct source of light visible from
adjacent land in residential use or from the public
right-of-way and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Sectlon 2 (H), of this ordinance.
4.
At the boundaries of a residential district, a
strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be
landscaped and scroonod in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 7 [G), of this ordinance.
5.
Parking or car magazine storage space shall be
screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G), of this ordinance.
6.
All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be minimized and shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this
ordinance.
Z
7. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
0. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance.
9. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are
subject to change when the Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request,
finds that the general welfare and public
betterment can be served as well or better by
modifying the conditions.
10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
MONTICEId.O ZONING ORDINANCE
0
1S/4
I
(G) Truck/heavy equipment repair
1. The entire site other than taken up by a building,
structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a
material to control dust and drainage which is
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
2. A drainage system subject to the approval of the
City Engineer shall be installed.
3. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as
to have no direct source of light visible from
adjacent land in residential use or from the public
right-of-way and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [H), of this ordinance.
4. At the boundaries of a residential district, a
strip of not lees than five (5) feet shall be
landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 7 [G), of this ordinance.
5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be
screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. '
6. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be minimised and shall
be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this
ordinance.
7. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
B. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance.
9. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are
subject to change when the Council, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request,
finds that the general welfare and public
betterment can be served as well or better by
modifying the conditions.
10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
11. A specific area shall be designated for the
exterior storage of semi -truck trailers and/or
other vehicles and/or equipment accessory and
incidental to the truck which is being
repaired/serviced.
MONTICELLO HONING ORDINANCE
[H] Prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to principal
use provided that:
1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air
emission standards as established by federal or
state pollution control agencies.
2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate
potential of stack gases being trapped at ground
level by the effect of wind flow around buildings.
3. On or before a date determined by the City, furnace
owner will complete all emissions testing on
prototype furnace and will apply for an air
emission permit from the PCA even if exempt from
PCA regulations. Furnace design must meet or
exceed proportional requirements for a 1 million
BTU furnace as required by the PCA. Failure of
emission tests during prototype development or
failure to obtain permission to sell this product
in Minnesota shall terminate conditional use
permit.
4.
Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the
heating season. Non -heating season use of the
system shall be limited to testing and
demonstration. Furnace shall not by operated for
the sole purpose of reducing waste tires.
5.
A 6 -toot, 901 opaque fence shall be used to screen
waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be
in plain view.
6.
Complaints made by area property owners about the
furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the
City to withdraw the conditional use permit and
therefore halt furnace operation.
7.
If it is determined by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency that waste ash is hazardous waste,
it shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the
City of Monticello and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
(#188, 5/14/90)
H
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3
15/6
CHELSEA ROAD PIAMaNG STUDY PROPOSED ZONING MAP APIE MMENT
From B-2 to I-,
From I-1, B-2, B-2 to B -C
B-2: Limited Busineas
B-3: Highway Business
B -C: Business Campus
I -1s Light Industrial
I-2: Heavy Industrial
From 6-3 to S-2
"TAi5 Area... /proptca
-4;r re tonin
a-� ` l S -hin • .