Loading...
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 • .