Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-01-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 1, 1990 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Dan MCConnon, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm,
Richard Carlson
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
e• ,1 April 3, 1990.
7:34 p.m.� 3.� Approval of the minutes of the special meeting held
j!ee,oApril 23, 1990.
7:36 p.m. 4. Public hearing - A variance request to allow
construction of a porch addition within the front
yard setback requirement. Applicant, Ronald
Reinking.
7:51 p.m. 5. Public hearing - A conditional use request to allow
a Day Care (Headstart Program) in a R-2 (single and
two family residential) zone. Applicant, First
Baptist Church/Wright County Community Action
Headstart Program.
8:11 p.m. 6. Public hearing - Consideration of approval of
preliminary plat entitled Kirkman addition.
(KMART) Applicant, The Lincoln Companies.
6:26 p.m. 7. Public hearing - Consideration of rezoning request
of land south of realigned 7th Street right of way
from PEN (performance zone mixed) to B-3 (highway
business) zoning. Applicant, The Lincoln
Companies.
8:41 p.m. 8. Public hearing - Consideration of conditional use
permit which would allow retail commercial activety
in a PEN zone. Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st
Century Builders.
9:01 p.m. 9. Public hearing - Consideration of variance request
which would allow less than the minimum parking lot
0 setback or variance request which would allow less
than the minimum parking spaces for commercial use
ina PEN zone. Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st
Century Builders.
9:16 p.m. 10. Public hearing - Consideration of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment reducing "convenience food" parking
requirement. Applicant, Shingobee Builders.
9:36 p.m. 11. Public hearing - Consideration of adopting an
ordinance amendment which would allow operation of
a prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel
P in an I-1 (light industrial) zone. Applicant, Ray
Schmidt.
9:51 p.m. 12. Consideration of conditional use permit which would
allow operation of protoype furnace using rubber
products as fuel.
9:56 p.m. 13. Public hearing - A variance request to allow no
concrete curbing and no curb barrier within 5 feet
of a lot line in certain areas of a parking lot;
and a request to allow an additional driveway
within 125 feet of an existing driveway.
Applicant, Dean Hoglund/Ren Schwartz.
10:06 p.m.14. Public hearing - A zoning amendment to amend the
entire sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain
Management Ordinance. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
10:16 p.m.15. Public hearing - Consideration of ordinance
amendment to off-street parking requirements.
Applicant, City of Monticello.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS:
10.46 p.m. 1.
A variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the eideyard setback
requirement. Applicant, Daniel whaylen.
Council action: No action necessary, as the
request did not come before them.
10:48 p.m. 2.
A variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the eideyard setback
requirement. Applicant, John Borash. Council
action: No action necessary, as the request
did not come before them.
10:50 P.M. 3.
A conditional use request to allow a car wash
in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Applicant, Dean Hoglund. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
10:52 p.m. 4.
Consideration to review potential amendments
to the hard surfacing and curbing requirements
of the ordinance. Council action: No action
necessary, as the request did not come before
them.
10:54 p.m. 5. Consideration of amendment to the off-street
parking requirements. Applicant, Monticello
Theater. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
10:56 p.m. 6. Consideration of an ordinance amendment which
would allow theaters to utilize joint off-
street parking facilities located within (500)
five hundred feet of a theater. Applicant,
Monticello Theater. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
10:58 p.m. 7. Consideration of a conditional use permit
allowing the Monticello Theater to use certain
public areas as joint parking. Applicant,
Monticello Theater. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
11:00 P.M. 8. A variance request which would allow more than
SOY of the off-street parking for the
Monticello Theater Addition to be supplied by
joint parking facility. Applicant, Monticello
Theater. Council action: No action
necessary, as the request did not come before
them.
11:02 p.m. 9. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for June 5, 1990,
7:30 p.m.
11:04 p.m. 10. Adjournment.
MINUTES
l SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 23, 1990 - 6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie,
Richard Carlson
Members Absent: Mori Malone
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The special meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan
McConnon at 6:08 p.m.
2. Public hearinq - Consideration of amendment to off-street
parking requirements. ADDlicant. Monticello Theater.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the background to the
Monticello Theater's four public hearing requests. Monticello
Theaters are proposing to add two additional screens to the
west of their existing building with the purchase of the
additional land area from the Wright County State Bank. The
Wright county State Bank is purposing to purchase the existing
Stokes Marine building. They'll have the building demolished
and sell their existing drive-in area, off of East Broadway,
to the Monticello theater for the construction of the two
additional screens to the west of their building. The
existing two lots of Stokes Marine and the adjoining lot to
the west would be combined to accommodate off-street parking
requirements. The Wright County State Bank is purposing to
lease the area of the old National Bushing store and the
Stokes Marine building to the Monticello Theater' to
accommodate 37 off-street parking spaces, with seven
additional spaces to be created in back of the existing
Monticello Theater property. There will be a total of 44 off-
street parking spaces created.
The first consideration by Planning Commission members is to
consider an amendment to the off-street parking requirements.
The current off-street parking requirement is one off-street
parking space per four seats. Monticello Theater is purposing
the ordinance be amended (to apply to a multi -screen theater)
to one off-street parking space per five seats.
Page 1
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/23/90
On the enclosed two charts submitted with this agenda item
suppliment, it was shown that there would be sufficient off-
street parking spaces for one off-street parking space per
five seats during weekday theater operation. However, it was
shown that on the weekend, the one off-street parking space
per five seats was not sufficient to accommodate weekend
theater patrons.
Chairman, Dan McConnon, opened for public input. Mr. Dale
Lungwitz, partner in the Wright County State Bank, explained
to the Planning Commission members the bank's position to
purchase the existing Stokes Marine building, have the
building demolished, and sell their existing land area for the
entrance to the bank off of East Broadway to the Monticello
Theaters. Mr. Lungwitz indicated the existing Stokes Marine
building is basically land locked with very little off-street
parking for a new purposed business if it would choose to
relocate there. It is very limited to any type of potential
development, other than to demolish the building and open up
more area downtown for off-street parking. By the creation of
this new project, the Wright County State Bank hopes to
achieve more visibility from the intersection of Highway 25
and Broadway Street. It would also open up the area for more
off-street parking in the downtown area. This project will
not come to be unless it is approved by the Federal Banking
Commission, which controls the acquisition and demolition of
property for the banking industry of which Wright County State
Bank belongs.
Mr. Don Smith, publisher of the Monticello times, explained
that he was very supportive of the proposed project. The
project is probably a long time coming for all of the
businesses on the block. He felt that it would be a win-win
situation for all affected properties, even for the City of
Monticello, which has the existing Senior Citizens Center
within this block.
Chairperson, Dan McConnon, closed the public hearing portion
of this agenda item and opened for input from the Planning
Commission members. The members voiced some concern about the
precedent that might be set by creating a five seat to one
parking space ratio in tho downtown area. If the City were to
grow there might be the possibility of another multi -screen
theater developing out in an open land area. If it is
developed in an open area and they provide all the off-street
parking spaces on site under the five seat per one parking
space requirement, they may come up short in accomodating the
total number of spaces per number of people in attendance.
Page 2
O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/73/90
Therefore, on a motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard
Carlson, to approve the ordinance amendment to the off-street
parking requirements. Motion to read: 27) Theater: at least
one parking space per five seats based on the design capacity
of the main assembly hall facilities may be provided in
conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to
additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance.
A. In the Inner City of Monticello, the Original Plat, and
Lower Monticello Additions in the City of Monticello, at
least one parking space per five seats based on the
design capacity of the main assembly hall.
B. In all other platted and unplatted areas of the City at
least one parking space per four seats based on the
design capacity of the main assembly hall.
Motion carried unanimously, with Mori Malone absent.
Public hearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment which
would allow theater to utilize loint off-street parkinq
facilities located within (5001 five hundred feet of theater.
Applicant, Monticello Theater.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the Monticello Theater's
request to have the area for joint off-street parking
facilities increased from 300 lineal feet to 500 lineal feet.
Jeff O'Neill indicated out on the 500 lineal feet radius
parameters some additional off-street parking that could be
utilized, whether it be for private off-street parking or
public off-street parking facilities. It could be used during
off peak hours by the existing businesses and during peak
hours by the theater.
Chairperson, Dan McConnon, opened the public hearing. Mr.
Mike Mueller, Monticello Theaters, indicated that at his
Waconia theater location, some off-street parking is provided
at the far end of the parking lot in excess of approximately
600 feet from the theater location. The city developed
additional off-street parking as part of his five screen
original theater project and also with the possible addition
of a sixth screen, which is currently leased out, the City
would provide an additional 64 off-street parking spaces for
this facility. Mr. Mueller indicated that he had spoken with
the most affected property owners and businesses that lease
from these property owners. The majority were in favor of his
proposed theater expansion which would open up additional off-
street parking across the street from the existing businesses.
Page 3
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/23/90
He also indicated that he would go a step further and have a
map drawn up to place in full view of the theater patrons
which come to the theater. Also, he would possibly have a
short movie presentation shown at the beginning of each show
to indicate were the Monticello Theater parking is to be.
There being no input from the public, Chairperson, Dan
McConnon, opened the meeting for any discussion from the
Planning Commission members. There being no input from the
Planning commission members, a motion was made by Cindy Lamm,
seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the ordinance amendment
to allow theaters to utilize the joint off-street parking
facilities located within 500 feet of a theater. Notion
carried unanimously, with Mori Malone absent.
Public hearing - Consideration of a conditional use permit
allowinq the Monticello Theater to use certain public parkinq
areas as "joint parkinq". Applicant, Monticello Theater.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the Monticello Theater's
conditional use request to allow the theater to use certain
public areae as joint parking. He explained that there are
additional parking spaces in adjoining public and private lots
that could be utilized during theater operation hours for off-
street parking. Jeff O'Neill explained the areae where this
joint parking could be shared on public and private parking
lots. There appears to be ample area for theater parking in
these areas as mentioned above. There would be an ongoing
process to encourage theater patrons to use designated parking
areae and to stay away from private parking areas that are
closer to the theater. Jeff O'Neill explained the proposed
conditions that would be applied to the conditional use permit
and they were as followss
A. The City approved joint parking areae shall be located
within 500 feet of the theater.
B. No substantial conflict in the principle operating hours
of the two uses (theater/retail, service) for which the
joint use of off-street facilities as proposed.
C. A properly drawn instrument, executed by the parties
concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities,
duly approved as to the form and manner of execution by
the City Attorney, shall be filed with the City
Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder.
Page 4
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/23/90
D. A properly drawn instrument executed by the Wright county
State Bank and Monticello Theater outlining full and
uninterupted use by the Monticello Theater of 37 parking
stalls. Said instrument shall be filed with the City
Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder.
E. Owner/operator shall provide information to patrons
regarding location of approved parking areas. The notice
shall include publication of maps in the official city
paper, posting of parking areas in the theater lobby
review of parking areas at each show preview.
Chairperson, Dan McConnon, opened the public hearing. Mr.
Mike Mueller, Monticello Theater, reiterated his intention to
fully abide by the five conditions as noted by Jeff O'Neill.
There being no input from the public, he opened the meeting
for any discussion from the Planning Commission members. The
Planning Commission members felt a little uneasy approving
such a request without the proper documentation being
completed prior to this meeting date. It was indicated,
however, that they could approve it subject to this joint
agreement being documented, executed, and recorded.
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by
Richard Martie,_to approve the conditional use request
allowing the Monticello Theater to use certain parking areas
as joint parking. The following were listed as five
conditions of there approvals
A. The City approved joint parking areas shall be located
within 500 feet of the theater.
B. No substansial conflict in the principle operating hours
for the two uses (theater/retell, service) for which the
joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed.
C. A properly drawn instrument, executed by the parties
concern for joint use of off-street parking facilities,
duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the
City Attorney, shall be filed with the City Administrator
and recorded with the County Recorder.
D. A properly drawn instrument, executed by the Wright
County State Bank and Monticello Theater outlining full
and uninterupted use by the Monticello Theater of 37
parking stalls. Said instrument shall be filed with the
City Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder.
Page 5
C)
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/23/90
Owner/operator shall provide information to patrons
regarding location of approved parking areas. Notice
shall include publication of maps in the official city
paper, posting of parking areas in the theater lobby, and
review of parking areas at each show preview.
Motion carried unanimously, with Mori Malone absent.
5. Public hearinq - A variance request which would allow more
than 50 percent of the off-street parkinq for the Monticello
Theater Addition to be supplied by a joint parkinq facility.
ADplicant, Monticello Theater.
Dan McConnon indicated that with the new parking spaces as
counted, the variance would not apply in this case, as the
Monticello Theater would be able to supply at least 50 percent
of the off-street parking spaces.
6. Adjournment.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Afid rsdn�
Zoning Administrator
Page 6
D
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
4. Public hearinq - A va rinance request to allow construction of
a porch addition within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Ronald Reinkinq. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: _
Mr. Ronald Reinkinq is proposing to construct a porch addition
onto his existing house within the front yard setback
requirement. As you will note on the enclosed site plan, Mr.
Reinking's front most portion of his house is within 40 feet
of the existing house. The minimum front yard setback
requirement is 30 feet. Note that on this site plan all
measurements are taken from in back of the curb itself, with
the actual front property lines being 12-14 feet in from the
back of the curb. Therefore, his existing house and the house
to the east, the Klatt house, are currently within the front
yard setback requirements. When we run into houses with
different setback requirements, the closest the house can come
to those setback requirements is 1/2 the distance between the
difference between the farthest setback house and the closest
setback house. The way Mr. Reinking'a house currently exists,
it does fall within that setback requirement, but with the
proposed porch addition, he would encroach another 8 feet into
the setback requirement. With Mr. Reinking's existing house
being an older house which has had additions, he is proposing
to bring it back to its original style with the old open
porch.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
porch addition within the front yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
porch addition within the front yeard setback
requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In review of Mr. Reinking's variance request, the City staff
has trouble finding a definite reason for hardship for Mr.
Reinking's request. However, one may look at it from the
aspect that his intentions would[definateliA fall within the
character of the neighborhood and wouldnpt diminish the
property values of the adjoining property o e\rye.
gc.�s a Poo0. P�c��av�� -•,�F rno��r
Jo- 1"o'k-0. ( f,
,N
C@,ASp``,..
\°.n ��a.��l J�Q.:dc I�C;�Y'• ,` �a C,�O�IV� �N`�
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; copy of
the site plan for the proposed variance request; copy of the
front elevation for the proposed variance request; copy of the
ordinance section on the minimum front yard setback
requirement.
\ A variance request to allow construction of a porch
` addition within the front yard setback requirement.
APPLICANT: RONALD REINRING
lk
r
T� 4��"
�t...a-.
r��•za
�
o
o
� a
xL
1 aFJwxr.. i\�.� •. e I i \ �cRocr"_ -
iar;7. .je'...-- -�lint
+. -. ; • ; . �.;.. = tom' }
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
B-3 30 10 30
B-4 0 0 0
I-1 40 30 40
I-2 50 30 50
1. fa R-1, L-2, B-1 and B-2 disUi<iete, where
/ ediecent structures excluding accessory
PS b n same block have front
V3 rard setbac different/from those required,
the front yard minimum setback shall be
�+yn �5 the average o? the adiegent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure,
the front yard minimum setback shall be
the average of the required setback and
the eatback of the adjacent structure.
In no case shall the minimum front yard
�r J setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
es provided in Subsection (FJ below.
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1 and B-2 districts, if
lot is a cornor lot, the sidayard setback
shall be not loos than twenty (20) fact
from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way
line.
(0) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements.
1. Chimneya, flues, belt courses, leaders,
sill, pilaster, lintels, ornamental features,
cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like
provided they do not project more than
two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features provided
they do not extend above tho hoight of
the ground floor Leval of the principal
structure or to a distance lona than two (2)
foot from any lot line.
3. In roar yards: recreational and laundry
drying equipment arbors and trellises,
balconies, breezeways, open porchoo, detached
outdoor living rooms, garages, and air
conditioning or heating equipment.
4. Solar Systema.
'EJ Leto of multiple housing unit Structures may
be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership
provided that the principal structure containing
the housing unite shall most the Setback distances
of the applicable zoning district.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Public hearing- A conditional use request to allow a Day Care
(Head Start ProgramZ in a R-2 (Single and two family
residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptist Church/Wright
County Community Action Head Start Program. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The First Baptist Church has been approached by the Wright
County Community Action Group to start a head start program in
a portion of the existing First Baptist Church building
complex. The proposed conditional use is allowable only as a
conditional use subject to nine conditions within an R-2
(single two family residential) zone. The Wright County
Community Action Group is proposing to start a head start
program with operation days similar to what the school
districts days of operation are. Those days of operation are
usually from September through May of the school calendar
year. The children that are brought into this type of program
are bused in small buses to this site, and are transported
back to their homes at the end of each day's school session.
The two other vehicles that would be at this site would be
used by the teachers of this program. The existing site to be
serviced with tho off-stroot parking loading/unloading
requirements is in the process of a five year program to be
completed within that five year time span with the First
Baptist Church, the owners of the property. At the time of
the proposed request, there will be no hard surfacing or
curbing done on this parking lot which would be used by the
Wright County Community Action Group. In speaking with the
representative of this group, they voiced complete agreement
In meeting all of the nine conditions listed in the
conditional use application.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a Day Care
(Head Start Program) in a R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow Day Care (Head
Start Program) in a R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the proposed use of the First Baptist Church, certain
rooms would be used for a head start program being operated
during the school year. Tho City staff recommends approval of
the conditional use request, with the applicants meeting all
of the nine conditions related to this conditional use
request.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request;
copy of the ordinance section listing the nine conditions of
an R-2 zone.
WRIGHT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION, INC.
Community Action Building f
Box 39
Waverly, Minnesota 55390
(612) 658-4415
MEMO
DATE: April 13, 1990
TO: Residents of Monticello living near the First Baptist Church
FROM: Arlene Wirth
Director of the WCCA Head Start Program
We are applying for a conditional use permit to use one (1) classroom at
the Baptist Church for a (lead Start Center. 1 feel that you should have some
basic information about what Head Start is and how it will impact your
neighborhood.
Head Start is a program that provides a comprehensive, preschool education
to enrolled 3, 4 8 5 year old children from low income families In the
Monticello area. A Head Start Mini -bus picks up the children from their
homes and brings them to the center site four (4) days a week during the
regular school year. Children are given a snack, and lunch along with a
planned educational curriculum.
There will be two class sessions offered, one in the morning and one in the
afternoon. A total of about eighteen (18) children will be attending each
session. Three Mead Start Staff will be on Site to supervise and instruct
the class. Children are indoors most of the time. When outdoors, they are
constantly under Staff supervision. They would be using the city park across
the street for their outdoor ploy area.
Head Start provides a quality program that is beneficial to the children,
families and community. If you have any questions or concerns, please call
me at 658-4415 or Pastor Sams at 295-3552.
ED] Day Care - group nursery provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum
of thirty-five (35) Leet.
3. Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
3. Section 5 of this Ordinance.
Q
d.
Adequate off-street loading and service
e..Lrances are provided in compliance with
f
Chapter 3. Section 6 of this Ordinance.
v
5.
The site and related parking and service
shall be served by an arterial or collector
street of sufficient capacity to accommodate
the traffic which will be generated.
6.
All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be In compliance
with Chapter 3. Section 9 of this ordinance.
7.
Tito provisions of Chapter 22 of thin ordinance
aro considered and satisfactorily met.
S.
Tito regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare, Public Welfare
Manual 11-31-30 as adopted. amended and/or
changed are satisfactorily mot.
9.
A written indication of preliminary. pending
or final license approval from the regulatory
welfare agency in supplied to the City.
1•
AN
Cry.
fit
oil"
woo
Vista,
ZO
VjtQG
PAT
CU
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
6. Public Hearinq - Consideration of approval of preliminary plat
entitled Kirkman addition. (KNART) Applicant, The Lincoln
Companies. ( J.O.)
A. REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
The Lincoln Companies along with the City of Monticello are
joining together toward development of a plat that will
"clean-up" a complex set of legal descriptions associated with
the KNART development area. Incorporated into the plat are
properties now owned by the City (formerly owned by Holthous,
Pratt) and The Lincoln Companies. The plat includes street
and easement dedication areas associated with the 7th street
improvement project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve preliminary plat of Kirkman addition.
Approval of the plat is important as it includes
dedication of the 7th street right of way. This
dedication makes the 7th street improvement project
possible.
The plat has been reviewed by staff and at present fails
to meet a number of platting requirements. The copy of
the plat for your review has been redlined and sent back
to the developer for modification. If the changes are
made prior to planning commission review, the preliminary
plat is acceptable. Also, due to a conflict between the
KMART site plan and the original design of the 7th street
right of way, the KNART site slightly overlaps a portion
of the standard 80' right of way. At the point of
overlap, the right of way is reduced, however and
easement has been granted to the City in lieu of the full
80' foot width. Although this situation is not ideal,
staff views this discrepancy as being somewhat benign.
2. Notion to deny approval of preliminary plat of Kirkman
addition.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if
problems with the Plat are discovered.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with
modifications as said approval cleans up a complex sot of
legal descriptions, plat development is a requirement of the
development agreement between the City and The Lincoln
Companies and the plat is in sufficient compliance with the
standards noted in the subdivision ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of preliminary plat - Kirkman Addition
...........
17
............
till
L
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
7. Public hearinq - Consideration of rezoning request of land
south of realigned 7th Street riqht of way from PZM
JDerformance zone mixedl to B-3 (highway business) zoninq.
Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE/SACRGROUND:
The proposed amendment to the zoning map is a non-
controversial item which calls for changing the zoning map to
reflect the realignment of the 7th Street right of way. As
you may recall, the 7th Street right of way was originally
planned to swing toward the freeway, as it was extended west
from Locut Street. All points to the south of this original
alignment are zoned under the B-3 catagory. All points to the
north of this original alignment fall under the PZM catagory.
The 7th Street alignment which was adopted, is not in the same
position as the original alignment, therefore, it makes sense
to adjust the zoning map accordingly.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the proposed zoning map amendment.
Motion based on the finding that the amendment is
consistent with the geography character of the area and
that the original intent of the zoning ordinance was to
utilize 7th Street as the boundry between PZM zone and
the B-3 zone. Therefore, it makes sense to change the
zoning map to match the final alignment of 7th Street
2. Motion to deny ordinance amendment.
Denial of the ordinance amendment would leave a sliver of
PZM property between the B-3 zone and the 7th Street
right of way. The configuration of this sliver of land
would render it useless for development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the proposed
zoning map amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Zoning map showing existing 7th Street boundry line and
proposed boundry line.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
8. Public hearing - Consideration of conditional use permit which
would allow retail commercial activity in a PZM zone.
Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st Century Builders. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
JKMV partnership working in conjunction with 21st Century
Builders requests that the City consider issuing a conditional
use permit which would allow the development of a 34,000
square foot shopping mall on the vacant property directly east
of the building now rented by Maus Foods. As some of you may
know, previous to consideration of this conditional use permit
request, the applicant asked Council to consider closing Cedar
street and rerouting traffic down Palm Street. This plan or
"Plan A" would allow the development of larger a shopping mall
connected directly to the Maus Foods building.
In response to the report submitted by the City Planner and in
light of positive potential development of a relatively large
retail complex, the City Council voted against the concept of
closing Cedar street with Mayor Maus abstaining due to
conflict of interest. This closing of Cedar street issue
appoars to bo over. Planning Commission is now asked to focus
on evaluating "Plan B" which utilizes the available land area
and City utilities.
Following is an excerpt from the review completed by the City
Planner of the Plan A. Concepts presented in the Planner's
report are useful in analyzing Plan B.
The purpose and intent of the PZM district clearly
calls for development that is sensitive to the
surrounding area and environment and must produce a
creative and innovative development with aesthetic
controls as a transition between high density
residential and low intensity commercial. Maus
Foods would be considered a high intensity
commercial and a continuation of high intensity
commercial activity is not the intention of the PZM
district. The District also clearly intends to
preserve open space and unique characteristics of
the surrounding land and must address all of these
issues through a complete submittal.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
An important part of the PZM district is to create
significant separation between commercial activity
and residential development. As the area directly
north of the proposed shopping center is
residential including the railroad right -of -way, a
significant setback of berming and landscaping
would be anticipated. Also, woodland preservation
is part of the review , much of which has already
been removed from the site prior to submittal.
Setback requirements within the PZM are, as a
minimum, those requirements found in the zone most
similar to the development proposed. The perimeter
setbacks can be increased as needed by the City of
Monticello to properly integrate the development
into the community considering the guidelines of
the Ordinance and the Comprehensive plan.
In summary, the plan does not exhibit the criteria
set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and certainly
does not portray the kind of development that meets
the guidelines and review criteria in the PZM
District. A development more appropriate to this
area would be of a significantly less intense scale
with preservation of slopes, existing road systems,
large perimeter setbacks with berming and
landscaping and minimal traffic generation. Also,
multiple family would be appropriate in this area
as that use would conform to the Comprehensive
Plan.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - Plan B
It is clear that Plan B is similar to Plan A with the
exception that under plan B, Cedar Street would remain open.
In many ways the design of the plan B is similarly
inconsistent with the goal and intent of the PEM zone.
Plan B does not appear to be sensitive to the surrounding area
and environment and does not include provisions for creative
and innovative development with aesthetic controls as a
transition between high density residential and low Intensity
commercial. Plan B includes only nominal landscaping,
intrusion into minimum parking and drive setback area. It
generally calls for maximizing the commercial potential of the
site.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
The District also clearly intends to preserve open space and
unique characteristics of the surrounding land and must
address all these issues through a complete submittal. The
proposal submitted does not adequately address unique
characteristics of the surrounding land area.
An important part of the PZM district is to create significant
separation between commercial activity and residential
development. As the area directly north of the proposed
shopping center is residential including the railroad right of
way, a significant setback of berming and landscaping would be
anticipated. Also, woodland preservation is part of the
review , much of which has already been removed from the site
prior to submittal. Plan B as proposed is void of berming or
landscaping along the northern boundary of the site, in
addition, no provisions for landscaping have been made for the
eastern edge of the site.
The southern boundary of the site features a high retaining
wall that includes tree plantings that will serve to buffer
the impact of the commercial development on the multifamily
development to the south.
Setback requirements within the PZM are, as a minimum, those
requirements found in the zone most similar to the development
proposed. The perimeter setbacks can be increased as needed
by the City of Monticello to properly integrate the
development into the community considering the guidelines of
the Ordinance and the Comprehensive plan. Plan B reveals
adequate set -back of the commercial structures however the
parking and drive configuration calls for encroachment onto to
City/Burlington R.R. right of way and shows a minimal parking
area set -back on the eastern boundary of the development.
Approval of this plan, with the setback problems as noted
would be inconsistent with the intent of the PZM zone.
In summary, as with Plan A, Plan B generally does not exhibit
the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and certainly
does not portray the kind of development that meets the
guidelines and review criteria in the PZM District. A
development more appropriate to this area would be of a less
intense scale with preservation of slopes, largo perimeter
setbacks with berming and landscaping and minimal traffic
generation.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit request subject
to the following conditions,
Development of landscaping and berming plan
creating effective transition between commercial
and residential properties as determined by the
City. A bond in the amount of 1009 of the cost to
install beaming and landscaping shall be provided
to the City.
Z. Retail area should be sized in a manner that will
allow for sufficient space for customer parking,
employee parking and commercial drive areas. All
parking and drive areas shall meet or exceed
minimum requirements of the B -Z zone
3. Development of retaining wall shall be accompanied
by a safety fence for the purpose of preventing
falls from the retaining wall.
4. Retaining wall shall be construction plan shall be '
subject to review by City engineer.
5. Development reoriented 90 degrees which would
result in shops facing highway 25.
6. Trucks will not be allowed to enter or back in off
of Cedar Street.
Notion based on the finding that the development is in
compliance with conditions as listed is consistent with the
intent of the PZM zone and therefor consistent with the
geography and character of the area, it will not depreciate
the adjoining land values, the need has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
Conditions 1 and T noted above are designed to soften the
Impact of the commercial use in the transition area between
high density residential and high density commercial.
Conditions 3 and 4 are conditions designed to assure public
safety and the aesthetics of the retaining wall.
By reorienting the shopping area 90 degrees as proposed in
condition 5, the structure would have the affect of "boxing"
In the commercial area rather that spreading the commercial
use laterally Into the residential district to the oast.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Parking areas would be placed along cedar and away from
adjoining property lines. The commercial value of the
development might improve as the shopping area would be more
clearly visible from highway 25.
Planning Commission may wish to give informal approval based
on the changes above but table decision until refined site
plan is prepared.
2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit
request.
Motion based on the finding that the site plan as
presented will create a commercial development that Is
inappropriate for the PEM zone due to high intensity of
the development; minimal parking and parking set -back
distances; and nominal berming and landscaping.
Notion based on the finding that due to problems above,
the development is inconsistent with the geography and
character of the area and development of the site as
proposed will tend to depreciate the adjoining
properties.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
request subject to conditions noted in alternative 1 and any
other conditions that Planning Commission might add.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Plan A site plan, Plan B site plan, Planner's report.
nw.Wuum n . m . Rlpiff1.11 .nu:r u. Hann. r . r
I�
w
-d7
InAVILC: ETN:
-•- COXSULT VG tnav�•Ens
U\DSCA�E ARG-IT_CTS
Sirs M aST AVIINUE NORTH
SLIM 210
-MIv1ZAPOLrS. rtY swi
6¢-339.3300
r IiD40RANDUM
DATE: 19 April 1990
TO: JeffO'Neil
FROM: John Uban
RE. Shopping Ceara Plan be, 21st Century Builders dated Apra M 1990
The plan subtiiirred and reviewed did not contain the requirements spelled out in the PZM
section of the Ordinance. There is attensive documentation and site analysis that needs to
be submitted by the developer for complete review of the project Reference to other
area of the QRinance also were not addressed, therefore, are not part of this review.
At this point. I can only make general comments on, the plan and its basic layout in
respect to the Comprehensive Plan and the general direction of development.
L The plan shams the dosing of Cedar Street, aotth of 6th Street, up to the rLaroad
trade. Cedar Street is thea connected with a diagonal, curving road over to Palm
Street Therefore, all the
the c=mercW traffic for combined shopping center.
Maus Foods, and the additonal 30.000 «quare feet proposed would use Palm Street
as the local access to the businesses. Tbis is a significant disruption to the traffic
pattern established in Monticello.
Cedar Strea is intended to art as a cofiecter parapet to Highway 25 just the same
as Walnut Street provides a parallel road system to the west 'These parallel road
system arewery rmporrant is creatiog viable commercial setting along Highway 25
as illustrated in the comprehensive Pian. Walnut and Cedar Streets as to
strengthen access from the Downtown Arra out to the Interstate mating it possible
for commercial linkage between the shopping center and the Downtown Area. By
6reakin Cedar, the parallel road system breaks down at a critical point as it
app es the Interstate.
By directing traffic over to Palm Street, the commercial trade will increase on an
otherwise residential area. This area is sorted Residential dongg Palm Street and is
shown as Residential on the Comprehensive Flan. In esseneq it would further
derrdphasize the parallel road system and desire for commercial development to
attar w Downtowe and would start spreading the commercial activity in as
met -w06 -i "fadhion that is not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
04/20/90 08:53 DSU. INC. 16002
Shopping Ceote: Plan by ZW Century Builders Page 2
The plan as designed would alto ti9 incteate traffic oa 6th Street Sirth
Street has been converted loin citcolaiton for the Mato Foods tirocery Store and no
Ioaeer has the chatacteristira applicnhla to a oirrtmnl arnrl. Ia order to gam
the eapaeity end the appropriate appmadt for conmmerdal activity, 6th Stant would
have m be sebwlt to lit original c�nfigoratioa and eliminate the pumicing and parking
/stand aruilatiaa from 6th Sheet riglmcoiway. It is obvio>n that past development
app down graded 6th Street as ani to serve arty additional traffic other than
thatrcrrrted by Maus Foods Any plan to espand oommerdal activity, dpedatty
using dth Strew as the entrance off of highway 25 does not follow the intent of
the C. -..r_ -'.. _.: . Plan or the past decisions made by the City.
In summary, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended in order for Cedar
Street to be dosed and commercial activity to take place in this area.
2. The purpose and intent of the PZM District dearly calls for development that is
sensitive to the sta:otmdimg area and environment and mast produce a creative and
imnovative development with aesthetic controls as a transition between high density
residential and low intensity commercial Maas Foods would be considered a high
intensity commercial and a aontintmd- of high intensity commercial activity is not
the intention of the PZM District The Dist dct also deady intends to preserve
open apaceand a com;A a MjhM of the amrrottndimg Land and mast address all
to
paissm part of the P2M Zoning District is to create s.WIM-nt separation
between corn:netzial activity and msidentlal development As the area directly north
of the proposed app. center is cntidential, mdudmg the ratlr ead right-of-way, a
aigni8emt eetbadc ofb g and lapping would a � removed $om woodland
preterantion is part of the review, much w has
the Sita prior to tmbmittal
Setback requirements within the PZM are, as a minimum, those requirements found
in the zone most simnIar to the development proposed The perimeter setbado can
be increased as needed by the City of Mo Hallo to p pedy integrate the
development into the community considering the gurdegn of the Ordinance and the
Comprehetulve Play
In summary, the plan does not c&lit the cdteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
and certainly does not�rtrsy the hod of development that meets the pidelines
and review cateria m et>z PZ , District A development snore appropriate to this
area would be of a dgni6cndy lest intense wile with preservatLa of elopes,
adsdng road sycte= large perimeter setbacks with berming and landscaping,and
mlmlmei traffic generation. Also, mdtip .Wdly would be appmp&= In thare,
as that use would conform to the Ccmpreheasive Plan.
�bC
v* If A
"0 ldi
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
9. Public hearing - Consideration of variance request which would
allow less than the minimum parking lot setback or variance
request which would allow less than the minimum parking spaces
for commercial use in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
This item is associated with the previous agenda item. In
order for the site plan B to be approved in its present form,
variances to minimum parking or setback requirements must be
granted.
The site plan calls for utilizing the City right of
way/Burlington Northern Railroad right of way for parking and
drive area. The ordinance requires that the parking be
setback five feet from this right of way at a minimum. You
may note that across the street at the existing Maus Foods
building, drive areae do encroach on the right of way as
proposed in Plan B. To the best of my understanding, the
owner of the building housing Maus Foods installed this drive
area on the right of way without formal approval.
If the Planning Commission provides a variance which would
allow this encroachment to occur, there is no need for a
variance to the minimum parking requirement as the 163 spaces
shown meet the minimum. On the other hand, if the variance
request is denied, then the spaces along the right of way must
be removed which creates a parking space deficit of 35 spaces.
This deficit could possibly be reduced by creating parallel
parking instead of head -in parking. The parallel parking
spaces would be located five feet inside the northern boundary
of the property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny variance requests based on the finding
that no hardship exists.
Planning Commission could take the position that
sufficient parking and setbacks could be accomplished
simply by reducing the size of the development area. The
need for the variance results primarily from the
developers desire to maximize the commercial value of the
property.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Motion to approve variance request based on the finding
that a sufficient hardship exists.
The extreme change in elevation from the south side of
the site to the north side of the site does present site
problems that could justify a variance. However, the
site plan calls for a retaining wall which overcomes the
topography problem thereby eliminating the topography
problem as justification for a variance.
It is also very difficult to justify a variance to the
setback requirement at the location of the 5th
street/Railroad Right of way. what is being asked for is
more than a variance as the developers are actually
proposing to use land that is not their own to meet
parking requirements. This concept can hardly be
supported without permission or acknowledgement from
Burlington Northern or without separate easement
agreement from the City_
C. STAFF RECONKENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance requests based on the
recommendation noted with the associated conditional use
permit request. The purpose of the PZN zone is to create a
transition between high density residential and high density
commercial. Staff suggests that the scope of the project be
scaled back slightly so as to allow sufficient room for
parking without any variances.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
See Conditional use permit supporting data.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Public hearinq - Consideration of Zoninq Ordinance Amendment
reducing "convenience food" parkinq requirement. Applicant,
Shinqobee Builders. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
Shinqobee Builders requests that the City consider amending
the parking requirements associated with convenience food
establishments. The proposed reduction amounts to a 2/3
reduction in convenience food parking requirement to be
accomplished by placeing convenience food parking in the
category that includes restaurants, night clubs, taverns,
cafes, and private clubs serving food and drinks.
Shinqobee builders proposes the development of a Subway
Sandwich Shop directly south of the Tom Thumb store on highway
25. Also proposed is a structure to be used for retail
purposes. This structure/use meets ordinance requirements.
The Subway Shop portion of the site plan calls for sufficient
parking spaces if one applies the "restaurant" parking
requirement (22 spaces) rather than the "convenience food"
parking requirement (60 spaces). Accoring to the zoning
ordinance, the subway sandwich shop clearly meets the
definition of a convenience food establishment therefore it
appeared clear-cut that the sandwhich shop needed more
parking. After further investigation, it was found that the
City of Monticello has, in years past, used the "restaurant"
parking requirement when establishing the parking requirements
associated with other "convenience food" establishments
including Wendy's and McDonalds. In light of this
information, I contacted the City Planner and researched other
ordinances regulating parking associated with convenience food
activity. What I found out was quite interesting.
It appears that convenience food parking requirements vary
from city to city. Roseville, for instance, requires about
the same number of convencience food parking spaces as is
required by the existing Monticello ordinance. On the other
hand, recent traffic studies indicate that the parking ratio
for restaurants is adequate for convenience food activities.
Therefore, there does appear to be a rationale for reducing
the convenience food parking requirement based on the traffic
study. It should be noted that a reduction in the convenience
food parking requirement is not necessitated by previous
incorrect application of the ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS3
Notion to approve ordinance amendment by moving
"convenience food parking requirements from 3-5 H. Number
of Parking Spaces Required - section 13. to section 19.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Amendment based on the finding that:
a. Consistent with the geography and character of the
commercial zoning districts that apply.
b. The operation of the furnace will not tend to
depreciate the area and the land values in the
area.
C. The need for the use has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
d. The conditional use permit is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
According to the City Planner it appears reasonable to reduce
the parking requirement for convenience food activities as
proposed as such a reduction is consistent with a, b, c, and
d above.
In addition, the City has incorrectly applied the proposed
standard in years past and parking problems do not appear to
have resulted. By the same token, Wendy's has not experienced
terrific business activity and NcDonalds did expand their
parking after the original development.
2. Motion to deny ordinance amendment as proposed.
The proposal to reduce the parking requirements for
convenience food activity is reasonable according to traffic
studies. At the same time, however, the amendment takes
convenience food parking requirements from one extreme to the
other. The Planning Commission might wish to consider an
amendment that is slightly less extreme.
If the Planning Commission selects this alternative, the
Subway Shop parking would be insufficient which would require
a variance or the the establishment could provide "proof of
parking" which would indicate a parking expansion area that
would be accessible should parking become a problem under the
current site plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Is somewhat uncomfortable with the degree by which the
ordinance will be amended. Leseening the requirement too far
may result in parking problems that would be difficult to
revorse, at the same time however, it does appear that the
convenience food parking requirement as proposed is
justifiable given the results of scientific study. Staff
therfore gives a weak recommendation for amending the
ordinance as proposed.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment, Copy of Subway Shop site
plan, copy of traffic study.
Existing Ordinance
13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT AND CONVENIENCE FOOD:
At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15)
square feet of groves floor area, but not less than
fifiteen (15) spaces.
19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR
DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS:
At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of
gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space
for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area.
Proposed Ordinance
13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT:
At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15 )
square feet of groves floor area, but not less than
fifiteen (15) spaces.
19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR
DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, CONVENIENCE FOOD:
At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of
gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space
for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area.
b a..aa fes:.
10-7-28
10-7-28
F,2) Hotel or Motel: One space per room or suite, plus one space per employee on
the largest work shift, plus one space per three 13► persons to the maximum
` capacity of each public meting and/or banquet room, plus fifty percent (50%)
of the spaces otherwise required for accessory uses (e.g., restaurants and
bars).
Marina: One and one-half 11.51 spaces per berth, plus one space per employee.
At least ten percent (10%) of the spaces must be large enough to
accommodate cars with trailers.
Miniature Golf: One and one-half 11.5) spaces per hole, plus one space per
employee on the largest work shift.
Private Clubs: One space per three (3) persons to the maximum capacity of the
facility plus one per employee on the largest work shift.
Repair Services: One space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor
area, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift.
Restaurant, Fast Food: One space per fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area,
�1 plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. C ^,-i +r. 5—C
Restaurant, Standard: One space per three 13) patron seats or one space per
one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area whichever is greater, plus one
space per employee on the largest work shift.
School, Commercial or Trade: One space per three 13) students, plus one
space per employee (including faculty) of capacity class attendance period.
Shopping Center, (50,000 — 100,000) Square Feet Gross: Five (5) spaces per
one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area.
Skating Rink, Ice or Roller: One space per three hundred (300) square feet of
gross floor area, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift.
Swimming Facility: One space per seventy five 175) square feet of gross water
area, plus one space per employee on the largest shift.
Taverns, Dance Halls, Night Clubs and Lounges: One space per fifty (50)
square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per employee on the largest
work shift.
Tennis, Racquetball, Handbell Courts: Four 14) spaces per court, plus one
space per employee on the largest work shift,
Theater: One space per four 141 patrons to the maximum capacity of the facility
inclusive of both Indoor and outdoor capacity, plus one space per employee on
the largest work shift.
Vehicle Sales, Repair and Maintenance Services: One space per eight hundred
18001 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per employee on the
IRrnn91 WMA gruff
U651 1
F
En
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW (836)
Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
LEASABLE AREA
On a: WEEKDAY
PARKING GENERATION RATES
Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 GSF
Rate Rates Deviation Studies Leasable Area
9.95 3.55-15.92 3.41 18 3
Petkmq Genaoton, Au" 1911MMituto of Tiampotltallon EfVhwm tr
146 ,O
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R'.
44
42
0
0
w
40
38
U
36
0
W
34
Q
32
1b o r N. •.ate cP
�
30
�.. z
28-
cc
28
u
a
4
24-
22
22
+f o
a°
a
20
° 0
Q.
18
0 0
0
16
0 0
n
14
1* 2 3 4 5 8
7
X 1000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA
5�b
I I ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITIED CURVE
Fitted Curve Equation: P01.95(X) 0- 20.0 f
R' 0.038
Petkmq Genaoton, Au" 1911MMituto of Tiampotltallon EfVhwm tr
146 ,O
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
11. Public hearing - Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment
which would allow operation of a prototype furnace usinq
rubber products as fuel in an I-1 zone. ADDlicant. Ray
Schmidt. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to consider amending the list of
conditional uses allowed in the I-1 zone by adding the
"operation of a prototype furnace furnace using rubber
products as fuel". The following review is a review of this
planning case along with comments already made by Council.
Ray Schmidt of Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company hopes
to occupy the structure that will soon be vacated by Larson
Manufacturing. Schmidt has placed earnest money down in
anticipation of purchasing the structure; however, he will not
complete the purchase until the City reviews his operational
plans which include the operation and development of a
prototype furnace which uses automobile tire rubber as fuel.
The furnace proposed for development and installation is not
an incinerator. In other words, the furnace is designed to
use tires in heating the structure and is not intended to be
designed for the sole purpose of incinerating tires. This
furnace is one among other machines that Schmidt manufactures
that are designed to transform waste tires into materials that
can be reused for other purposes. A video will be presented
at the meeting which shows the Schmidts various tire reduction
products in operation.
In addition to the rubber burning furnace, Schmidt also has
developed machinery that will remove tires from wheels, cut
tires into manageable pieces, and reduce the manageable pieces
further into tire bits which can be used for many purposes,
including furnace fuel. The equipment that Schmidt has
designed is relatively inexpensive and is intended to be used
by small scale tire reducing operations. Schmidt believes
that the type of equipment that he is manufacturinq will
create an affordable process by which tires can be converted
into a product that can be reused.
LAND USE ZONING ISSUES
Under the present zoning ordinance, the type of manufacturing
and assembly of equipment proposed by Schmidt is an allowable
use in the I-1 zone; therefore, under normal circumstances,
Schmidt would need no permit whatsoever to occupy the Larson
Manufacturing structure and begin his operation. This
situation, of course, is unusual because one of Schmidt's
product lines is a furnace which utilizes rubber as its fuel.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
The furnace is a prototype model and is untested at this time;
therefore, it appears unwise to allow the operation to begin
without an environmental impact review and subsequent
regulations. At the same time, however, the furnace does
appear to burn very cleanly. It may be that operation of a
single furnace utilizing rubber chips as its fuel may not
create a negative impact on the adjoining properties. To
assist the City in providing answers to our questions
regarding the impact of this furnace on adjoining properties,
City staff has requested that the PCA review the operation of
this furnace and provide the City with information or
direction regarding this matter. Attached you will find a
letter from Gary Standish of the Pollution Control Agency
which outlines the pro's and con's associated with the
operation of this furnace.
This item was addressed on an informal basis by City Council
at the previous Council Meeting. In response to the
information provided, Council agreed by consensus to allow the
operation of the furnace until it can be tested. The furnace
would not be allowed to operate if the furnace failed to meet
PCA guidelines. Ray Schmidt indicated that such conditions
would be acceptable. Other conditions were also discussed and
are listed in the proposed ordinance amendment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve ordinance amendment establishing
operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace
incidental to principle use as a conditional use in an I-
1 zone provided that:
1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air
emission standards as established by Federal or
State pollution control agencies.
Z. 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. Before (9/1/90) 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.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
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 not be operated
for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires.
5. A 6 foot 90% 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. Waste ash and particulate recovered, shall be
treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of
in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and
the MN Pollution Control Agency.
a. Notion based on the finding that the amendment is
consistent with geography and character of the
Industrial setting.
b. Issuance and enforcement of the conditional use
permit will not tend to depreciate the value of
adjoining properties.
C. The need for the use has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
d. The conditional use permit is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission could take the position that given the
strict conditions noted above, it is likely that the amendment
is consistent with the zoning ordinance amendment requirements
above.
Under the plan above, Schmidt assumes all of the risk
associated with installation and operation of the furnace. It
is encumbent apon Schmidt to operate is efficiently and
cleanly or face immediate possibility of termination of the
conditional use permit.
2. Motion to deny approve ordinance amendment establishing
operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace
incidental to principle use as a conditional use in an I-
1 zone provided that the operation of said furnace is
not consistent with A, B, C, D in alternative 1 above.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Despite the safegaurds provided by the conditions, Planning
Commission could take the position that the furnace is
untested and unregulated and the City should not allow
operation of the unit until it is formally tested and
approved. Only until such testing is complete would the City
be assured that the furnace emissions would not negatively
affect adjoining land owners.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency may not have the resources to assist the City
in monitoring or policing this type of operation. The City,
for the most part, will be on its own in terms of regulating
this type of use.
SUPPORTING DATAs
Comments from the Pollution Control Agency; Letter to the
Pollution Control Agency requesting information; If time
allows, a video presentation showing operation of equipment
manufactured by Schmidt will be presented.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency�
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone (612) 296-6300 —
April 20, 1990
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of !Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
Dear Mr. O'Neill
Ther following letter will respond to your inquiry dated April 9,1990 regarding
the potential development of a facility by the Tire Service Equipment
Manufacturing Oom¢rany Incorporated. The contents represent the views of the
Waste Tiro Managimnt program and the Divison of Air Quality Lased on
inforiation provided to our office.
To provide answers to the City of Monticello's questions, we will start with
question no. 3, "is a state or federal permit required 7"
Minn. Rules part 7001.1210 provides that a facility whose only air emissions aro
from contustion of a solid fuel, and %dose total rated heat input Is leas than 1
million 89G per hour, is exenVt from the requirement to obtain an air emission
permit. From the picture and data providrxl, Line unit appears to Le small emmyln
to be exmpt. We will use a i million B'Rh per hour unit with no pollution
control equipment as the basis for the other questions.
No. 1. Mint type of air emissions --particulate, gaseous, or otherwise— can be
expected from the stack and what quantity could be produced 7
Based on tire anaylses and test hAms,tiro conixistion can be expected to
emit particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
lntcrnplote ccrftmtion could res; tit In an unpredictable variety of
organic catnunds and W.r. A 1 million MU/hour unit could burn
approximately 100 tons of tiro chips in a heating season. Onisslons are
estlmatled to bot
particulates
2.9 lb/lour
4.4 ton/heating season
Carbon Monoxide
2.6 lb/hotir
3.9 ton/mooting season
Sulfur Dioxide
2.0 lb/lour
3.0 ton/leating season
Nitrogen Oxides 1.2 lb/hour 1.0 ton/hosting season
Reposed Offices: Dutulh • Brainerd " Dow Lakes • Marshall! • Roftster
Equal Onp*rha*y Emnpbl a flkmxd on Rmcycbd Pana
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page 2
No. 2. Would the MPCA require furnace temperature regulation, electrostatic
precipitions,or bag houses for particulates in the future 7
The 2.9 lb/hour emission rate for particulates could be considered to
exceed an applicable Minn. Air Pollution (bntrol Standard currently in
effect. The rate should be 0.4 lb/hour for a 1 million BTU/hour unit to
comply with the Lisle. 7fius, some type of dust collector appears to be
necessary from the start. Rules for waste incineration are under
development and may apply in the future.
No. 4. Will the operation of the tire burning furnace at the scale as described
create a bona fide pollution problem for neighboring property owners 7
'lois would not necessarily occur. Good design and operation might result
in stack emissions which are not visible and produce no ground level odor
or excessive concentrations of pollutants. Sufficient stack height is
important to avoid the stack gases being trapped at ground level by the
effect of wind flow around buildings.
No. 5. Can the furnace manufactured at this site be sold in Minnesota 7 If not,
what testa must the furnace pass before it can be sold statewide 7 When are you
planning on testing the operation of the furnace,and if you already have, what
were the results of the test 7
7be sale of the furnace is not regulated by any Minn. Pollution Oontrol
Agency rules, but rather the operation or use of the furnace. If no
federal regulations apply to this furnace, there is no mandatory testing
requirement. Most larger new sources are required to test emissions
within some time frame after startup. Ibis source -specific testing is
likely to be prohibitively expensive for unite of thl.e site. One
approach, used by U.S. EPA to regulate wood -burning stoves, is to require
the manufacturer to test one unit out of every 100 manufactured. The
manufacturer roceives a letter of compliance that remains effective so
long as each unit tested passses its test. 7be MPCA does not perfoan the
testing. 'There are numerous testing consultants in Minnesota and
elsewhere in the U.S. to prwido this service.
No. 6. Can the furnace be sold in other states 7
State regulations vary widely and change frequently enough that this must
be answered by each state.
No. 7. 7o what extent should the city limit Umo use of Umo furnaruce at the
manufacturing site 7 and
No. 8. Mat general conditions of operation would yru suggest that the city
place on the proposed oproration 7
If a coMitLonal use permit, building permit, or other city permit is
required, one approach would be to require the facility owner to apply
&I
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
1?ege
for an air emission penait from the KPCA ever if exacpt. The permit we
would issue would list all applicable air pollution control standards.
The stack height should be required to be high enough to avoid the
problem described in No. 4 above. 'fie use of the furnace could be
limited to the heating season.
Zhe interest in waste tire recycling and potential level of equipment
manufacturing for waste tire reduction, as represented by this carpany, are
encouraging to our program. If you have questions or require additional
information please feel free to contact no.
Sincerel=y, /
laXhI
Standish
llution Oontrol Specilist
Waste Tire Na WMMt IhLLt
Site Response Section
Ground (tater and Solid blasts Division
GSikn
Enclosure
ocr fres Spank
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
I%xne:(611)295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
April 9, 1990
M-.
Mr. Gary Standish
K— hMm,.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
u,C—n
520 Lafayette Road
Wn Bmwn
St. Paul, MN 55155
Fran Fair
Shirley Ardnwn
Dear Mr. Standish:
Wanm Smith
"."'
R&W
,.,r/arli�
The City of Monticello seeks your input regarding the
potential develo ment of a
p facility y that proposes to
A..—n�..",�,�,� ti
„�,,,,,,,,p, I p„I,r,,,„,,,,
manufacture automobile tire reducing equipment. The
k11O'Nrdl
location of the facility is not a problem, as the site
OM1. w„1,
is zoned for this type of manufacturing; however, a
JA. San,dd
unique situation has developed In that included among
n�u.�Mna
the items to be manufactured at this site Is furnace
equipment that uses automobile tire chips as fuel.
There is a concern that operation of such a furnace or
furnaces might negatively affect air quality and
adjoining properties.
The facility as proposed would operate a the fueled
furnace for the following purposes:
1. A tire fueled furnace would be used to heat the
structure in which the manufacturing is
conducted. The furnace would be the ongoing
primary source of heat for the structure.
2. In addition to the furnace being used to heat the
structure, Mr. Schmidt would also operate an
additional furnace or furnaces on an experimental
basis for the purpose of product development.
The City of Monticello understands the Importance of
tiro reduction and recycling, and the City also seas
the oconomlc development potential associated with
manufacturing of the reduction equipment. At the
same t1me, however, the City is obligated to protect
the Interests and land values of existing property
owners. The City needs to determine to what extent
Mr. Gary Standish
April 9, 1990
l Page 2
will the presence of the tire burning furnace or furnaces be
detrimental to the adjoining properties. Please assist the City of
Monticello by offering answers to the following questions:
1. What type of air emissions --particulate, gaseous, or
otherwise --can be expected from the stack and in what quantity
could they be produced?
2. would the MPCA require furnace temperature regulation,
electrostatic precipitations, or bag houses for particulates
in the future?
3. Is a state or federal permit required?
4. Will the operation of the tire burning furnace at the scale as
described create a bona fide pollution problem for neighboring
property owners?
5. Can the furnace manufactured at this site be sold in
Minnesota? If not, what teats must the furnace pass before it
can be sold state wide? When are you planning on testing the
operation of the furnace, and if you already have, what were
the results of the test?
6. Can the furnace be sold In other states?
7. To whet extent should the City limit the use of the furnace at
the manufacturing site?
8. What general conditions of operation would you suggest that
the City place on the proposed operation?
Thank you for addressing the questions listed above or forwarding
the questions to the appropriate party. I look forward to your
response.
Yours truly,
CITY OFAMONNTICnELLW
V/
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JO/kd
cc3 File
(S
Proposed Ordinance:
Prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to principle
use provided that:
1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air
emission standards as established by Federal or
State pollution control agencies.
T. 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. Before (9/1/90) 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 not be operated
for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires.
S. A 6 foot 90% 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 conditionl use permit and
therefore halt furnace operation.
7. Waste ash and particulate recovered, shall be
treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of
in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and
the MN Pollution Control Agency.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
12. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
operation of prototype furnace usinq rubber products as fuel.
(J.O.)
Unfortunately, proper public hearing notices were not sent out
regarding this conditional use permit request. Therefore,
this item must come before the Planning Commission at its next
meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
r
13. Public hearinq - A variance request to allow no concrete
curbing and no curb barrier within 5 feet of a lot line in
certain areas of a parkinq lot{ and a request to allow an
additional driveway within 125 feet of an existinq driveway.
Applicant, Dean Hoglund/Ken Schwartz. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As we explained to you at the public hearing for their car
wash conditional use request, the applicants would be back
with a couple of variance requests. Mr. Hoglund and Nr.
Schwartz are proposing to be allowed no curbing or 5 foot
green area seperation from the property line to the back of
the curb in certain areas of their parking lot. Note in the
enclosed site plan, the areas they are proposing not to put in
the curbing and 5 foot green area. With the service area that
is located to the south of their property, it does make sense
to allow traffic movement as long as all affected property
owners agree with the elimination of the curbing and the green
area requirement. It would allow traffic to move between
these properties more freely.
The developers request for an additional driveway curb cut
within 125 feet of an existing curb cut basically shows no
rational reason for granting the request. With the exception
of a future development to the west as shown, a proposed
laundromat, their request for the additional car wash does
make sense. If this request is granted, there should be a
time frame added, that if they are the developers of the
adjoining property owner to the west, it should be allowed.
If it sold to someone else and nothing can be worked out,
there should be seperate driveway curb cuts for each property
as it has already been layed out with each lot to be serviced
by one single driveway curb cut.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow no concrete curbing
and no curb barrier within 5 feet of a lot line in
certain areas of a parking lot
2. Deny the variance request to allow no concrete curbing
and no curb barrier within 5 feet of a lot line in
certain areas of a parking lot.
3. Approve the variance request to allow an additional
driveway within 125 feet of an existing driveway.
4. Deny the variance request to allow an additional driveway
within 125 feet of an existing driveway.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff recommends approval of the variance request to
allow certain areas of the parking lot to have no concrete
curbing or 5 foot green area separation from the back of the
curb to the property line. As long as an agreement can be
made between all affected property owners, it does allow for
better movement of traffic within the private properties
rather than traffic going out onto the service road to make
their transition from one property to the next. The staff
also recommends approval of an additional driveway curb cut
within a 125 feet of an existing driveway curb cut with the
following conditions:
1. An agreement must be worked out with the adjoining
property owner to the west.
2. The existing driveway curb cut be shortened to
accomodate a shared driveway curb cut, the same as
on the east side of this car wash lot.
3. If nothing in to be developed in the near future,
one year, the driveway curb cut be closed to the
property line and only one driveway curb cut be
allowed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of location of proposed variance request; copy of the
site plan for proposed variance request; copy of the ordinance
section in regard to concrete curbing requirement 5 foot green
area seperation requirement and the section of driveway curb
cuts within 125 feet of each other.
A variance request to allow no concrete curbing and
no curb barrier within 5 feet of a lot line in certain
areae of a parking lot; and a request to allow an additional
` "-•. \ driveway within 125 feet of an existing driveway.
to •: _ ,. �, ` rt� ='�`'`- \ �'`� \ .
t
1 '
' �YTYM1tf. �MNOi1Mgj
U
1 I e -1q IIo• I IL-1 is.
.J
r
pAiK �O .
d_- r iruMIp0JS
*-.+rte-
IDG&.' .
>� •. e�tir. v�Galwi '
ION O .r �•
1 �
I '
100 • 1 0. 1� ..
tt • I
too. .6 100. 0- r IOO. tf� I
tsITYM1MOY'�j OITIIMI�, • •
t
P
Ldbp
.,00.e.
r ib"
IOO.fo ._
Lat/! car.
J
(q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall
require a culvert unless the lot is
served by storm sever or is determined
unnecessary by Building Inspector.
Sire of culvert shall be determined
by Building Inspector but shall be
a minimum of twelve (12) inches in
diameter.
(r) CURBING:
I. All commercial and industrial
g�f-street pdrltiOg •n•+
driveways in commercial areas
shall have a six [6) inch nonsurmountablo
continuous concrete curb around
the perimeter of the parking
area and driveways. .
11. All off-street parking in the
I-1 and I-2 districts shall
have an insurmountable curb
barrier which, it not constructed
of six (6) inch continuous concrete
curbing, shall require prior
approval from the Planning Commission
and City Council. Driveways
in the 1-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable
continuous concrete curb along
its perimeter.
iii. All curb disigne and materials
shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
[BJ MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and sevoral
responsibility of the lessee and owner of the
principal use, uses, or building to maintain
in a nowt and adequate manner, the parking space,
accosowayo striping, landacaping, and required
fences.
(P) LOCATION: Ali accessory off-street parking
facilities required by this ordinance shall
be located and restricted as follows:
1. Required accessory oil -street parking shall
be on the same lot under the same ownership
as the principal use being served, except
under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 9 (I).
2. Except for single, two family and townhouse
dwellings, head -in parking, directly off
of and adjacent to a public street, with
each stall having its own direct access
to the public street, shall be prohibited.
i3
Except in the case of single family
and two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall be surfaced with
six (6) inch class five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1) STRIPING: Except for single, two
family and townhouses# all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
pointed lines not less than four (4)
inches wide.
(m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter 10
Section 2, (G3 and [H) of this Ordinance.
(n) SIGHS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the sight lines and
orderly operation and traffic movement
within any parking lot.
(o) CURBING AND f.VMSCAPING: Except for
single, two family and townhouoes,
algin off-street parkipV shall
heave p perimeter curb barrier around
the entire pa rkinj lot, �said curb
barri_�c shell, not be oloner than rtyo (5)
fa-SAL_Ln env lot 1+ne Grana, plantingo
or surfacing abterial oholl be provided
Lit ailarean bordoring the parking
area.
(p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-reoidential,
off-street parking areas of five (5)
or mora spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts in compliance
with Chapter J, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
m
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
Into the public street is prohibited.
(d) No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family,
two family and townhouse dwellings,
parking areae and their aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
followlny sandards:
WALL BALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCK INTERIA=
A:Y'LE MINIMUM MINILSIM MIJ11MUM
30 48.6' 44.5- .40.3-
45 56.8- 53.4- 50.0'
60 62.0- 59.70 57.4-
90 64.0- 64.0- 64.0 -
Parallel Parking : Twenty-two (22) feat in length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24)
feet in width.
(g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall
be at a minimum three (3) feat from
the aide yard property line in residential
districts and five (5) feet from the
aide yard lot line in buaineaa or
industrial districts.
(h) Driveway accosa curb openingo on a
public otroot except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located less than forty (40)
feet from one another.
(1) The grade elevation of any perking
area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one Q) LLrb_cut-W
one hundred twenty-ve Teei
of street frontage. All property
anal a antltled to at least one (1)
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited
to one (1) curb cut access per property.
(k) SUnFACINO: All areae intended to
be utilized for parking apace and
driveways shall be surfaced with materials
suitable to control dust and drainage. `.Y
c
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
14. Public hearing - A zoninq amendment to amend the entire
sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
Applicant, City of Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Our Flood Plain Ordinance is not -compliant due to 1986
changes to federal requirements of the National Flood
Insurance Program. Enclosed are the areas highlighted with
changes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Amend the entire section of the Flood Plain Ordinance.
Z. Do not amend the entire section of the Flood Plain
Ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMNENDATION:
The City staff recommends to amend the ordinance as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
`` Copy of the amended Flood Plain Ordinance.
Sample Two District Floodplain Management Ordinance
Two -Map Format
June 7, 1988
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION
1.0
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF
FACT AND PURPOSE
1
1.1
Statutory Authorization
1
1.2
Findings of Fact
1
1.7
Statement of Purpose
1
SECTION
2.0
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1
2.1
Lands to which Ordinance Applies
1
2.2
Establishment of Official Zoning Map
1
2.3
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation
2
2.4
Interpretation
2
2.5
Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
2
2.6
warning and Disclaimer of Liability
2
2.7
Severability
2
2.8
Definitions
2
SECTION
3.0
ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
4
3.1
Districts
4
3.2
Compliance
4
SECTION
4.0
FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW)
5
4.1
Permitted Uses
5
4.2
Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses
5
4.7
Conditional Uses
5
4.4
Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses
6
SECTION
5.0
FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF)
7
5.1
Permitted Uses
7
5.2
Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted
Uses
8
5.1
Conditional Uses
8
5.4
Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional
Uses
8
5.5
Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses
10
SECTION
6.0
Reserved for Future Use
SECTION
7.0
SUBDIVISIONS
11
7.1
Land Suitability Review Criteria
11
CT
7.2
Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area
Designation
11
SECTION
8.0
UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND
BRIDGES
11
8.1
Public Utilities
11
8.2
Public Transportation Facilities
11
8.3
On-site Savage Treatment and Water
Supply Systems
12
SECTION
9.0
MANUFACTURED HOMES/TRAVEL TRAILERS AND
TRAVEL VEHICLES
12
9.1
New Manufactured Home Parke
12
9.2
Replacement Manufactured Homes -
Existing Parks
12
9.3
Travel Trailers/Travel Vehicles
12
SECTION
10.0
ADMINISTRATION
13
10.1
Zoning Administrator
13
10.2
Permits, Certification Requirements
and Record Keeping
14 '
10.3
Appeals and variances/Duties of the
Board of Adjustment
15
10.4
Conditional Uses -Standards and
Evaluation Procedures
16
SECTION
11.0
NONCONFORMING USES
18
SECTION
12.0
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
19
SECTION
13.0
AMENDMENTS
20
CT
SAMPLE TWO DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
TWO -MAP FORMAT
SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND
PURPOSE
1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State
of Minn rX has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 104 and
(Zoning Enabling Statute)
delegated the responsibility to local government units to
adopt regulations deigned to m)nimize flood losses.
Therefore, the C, �i K N r: of
(governing body)
WA'U4-Ce11v Minnesota does ordain as follows:
(local unit)
1.2 Findings of Fact:
1.21 The flood hazard areas of
(local unit)
Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results
in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and
safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
1.22 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This
Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing
flood hazards which is consistent with the standards
established by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
1.3 Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this
Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section
1.21 by provisions contained herein.
SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall
appy to all landa within the jurisdiction of
n r c! shown on the Official Zoning
(local unit)
Map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within
the boundaries of the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts.
2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map: The official
Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of
this ordinance. The attached ma r a s a include the
Flood Insurance Study for the C V'prepared by
(1 cal unit)
the Federal Insurance Administration dated
and the Flood Boundary and Floodway_�Sap d ted19
and Flood Insurance Rate Map dated4u'12# therein.
The Officialoning Map sh 11 be on file in the Office of
the o and the
(Cit a k/Cou ty ud tor)
(Zen q Adm n strator)
2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation: The Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower
than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus
any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.4 Interpretation:
2.41 In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of
the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or
repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes.
2.42 The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be
determined by scaling distances on the Official Zoning Map.
Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of
the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official
Zoning Map, as ror example where there appears to be a
conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field
conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of
the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make
the necessary interpretation All decisions wi.l.l _be1based
on elevations on the regional (100 -year) flood profile and
11,01. other available technical data. Persons contesting the
���QL1 location of the district boundaries shall be given a
reasonable opportunity o present their case to the Board
p1�U l and to submit technical evidence}
2.8 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended
by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any
existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions.
However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions,
the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. All other
ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only.
2.6 turning and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance
does not imply that areae outside the flood plain districts
or land uses permitted within such districts will be free
from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of M011114N/i(1P11 or
(name df local unit)
any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative
decision lawfully made thereunder.
2.7 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
2.8 Definitions: Unlesp specifi lly defined below, words
or phrases used in thistordinancejshall be interpreted so as
to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage
and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable
application.
2.811 Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the
same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and
subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
2.812 Basement - means any area of a structure, including
crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below
ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of
_
excavation below ground level.
New
2.81] Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure
or land use listed in the official control that may be
Qr1��if,,�1
Illowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with
appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the
official zoning controls or building codes and upon a
finding that: (1) certain conditions as detailed in the
zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure and/or land use
conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and
are compatible with the existing neighborhood.
2.814 Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining
the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain
lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a
proportionate share of flood flows.
2.815 Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a
stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in
the inundation of normally dry areas.
2.816 Flood Frequency -1the frequency3for which it is
expected that a specifi flood stage or discharge may be
equalled or exceeded.
2.817 Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside
of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term
"fl odwafr ngs" used in the Flood Insurance Study for
74 (lochl unit)
218 Flood Plain {the bade proper and the areas adjoining
a etland, lake ot} watercourse which have been or hereafter
ma be covered by the regional flood.
2.819 Flood -Proofing - a combination of structural
provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and
structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction
or elimination of flood damages.
2.820 Floodway 70the bed of a vetland or lake and1 the
channel of a watercourse and those portions of t e adjoining
flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store
the regional flood discharge.
2.821 Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel
modification, culvert, building, v rey fence, stockpile,
refuse, fill, structure, or mattertind along, across, or
projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory
flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the
direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by
catching or collecting debris carried by such water. _
.822 Principal Use or Structure - means all uses or 2
structures that are not accessory uses or structures. JC
2.823 Reach - a hydraulic engineering to to describe a
longitudinal segment of a stream or river�inlluencedJ by a
natural or man-made obstruction. In an u an area, he
segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge
crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
2.824 Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of
large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota
and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to
occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -
year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with
the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study.
2.825 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lover
than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus
any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.826 Structure - anything c
o
n
st���+++cted or erected on he
?round or attachod to the ground
on-site utilities
including, but not limits to, b ildings, factories, sheds,
detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel
trailers/vehicles not mee inq the exemption criteria
specified in Section 9.31 of the ordinance and other similar
items.}
2.827 Variance - means a modification of a specific
permitted development standard required in an official
control including this ordinance to allow an alternative
development standard not stated as acceptable in the
official control, but only as applied to a particular
property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship,
practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and
elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and
zoning enabling legislation.
SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3.1 Districts:
7.11 Floodway District. The Floodway Di tract shall
include those areas designated as floodwayton the Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2�
3.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe Distric
shall include those areas designated as floodway fringet.2.1
n
the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section
r,32
Compliance: No hew structure or land shall hereafter be
ed and no structure shall be located, extended, converted,
or structurally altered without full compliance with the
terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations
which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this
Ordinance. Within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts,
all uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in
Sections 4.0, 4.0 and 6.0 that follow, respectively, shall
be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here
that:
3.21 New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured
homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are
subject to the general provisions of this Ordinance and
specifically Section 9.01
7.22 Modifications, additions, structural alterations or
repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and
nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by
the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically
Section 11.0; and
7.21 As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed
structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood
proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a
regiotorod profocoicnal engineer or architect as specified
in the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically
as stated in Section 10.0 of this ordinance.
SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FM)
4.1 permitted uses:
4.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod
l !arming, and wild crop harvesting.
4.12 industrial -commercial loading areas, parking areas,
and airport landing strips.
4.13 Private and public golf courses, tennis courts,
driving ranges, archery ranges, icnic grounds, boat
launching ramps, swimming areas,perks, wildlife and nature
preserves, game farms, fish hatc ries, shooting preserves,
target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing
2
areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails S
4.14 Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play
areas.
4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses:
4.21 The use shall have a low flood damage potential.
4.22 The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning
district if one exists.
4.23 The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase
flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill,
obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or
equipment.
4.3 Conditional Uses:
4.71 Structures accessory to the uses listed in 4.1 above
and the uses listed in 4.12-4.18 below.}
4.32 Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other
materials.
4.33 Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and
water control structures.
4.34 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission
lines, and pipelines.
4.35 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials.
4.36 Placement of fill.
i.d37 Travel trailers and travel vehicles either on
individual lots of record or in existing or new subdivisions
or commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to
the exemptions and provisions of Section 9.3 of this
Ordinance.
t
78 Structural works for flood control such as levees,kes and floodwalls constructed to any height where thetent is to protect individual structures and levees or
kes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops forfrequency flood event equal to or less than the 10 -year
equency flood event.
4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses:
4.41 All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill
(including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction,
storage of materials or equiant, or other uses may be
allowed as a Conditional Use that will cause any increase in
the stage of the 100 -year or egional flood or cause an Z
increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected J
4.42 All floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the
procedures and standards contained in Section 10.4 of this
ordinance.
4.47 The conditional use shall be permissible in the
underlying zoning district if one exists.
4.44 Fill:
(a) Fill PP{dredge s oil and all other simila materials}
deposited Or stored in the flood plain shall�be protected
from eros.Ln by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other
accep able method;
(b)Dredge spoil sites}end sand and gravel operations shaLL
not be ;allowed}in the lloodway unless?a long-term site
development plan is submitted which i cludes an
erosion/sodimentation prevention element to the plani.
(c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection (b)
immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel
operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or
other materials which would have caused an increase to the
stage of the 100 -year or regional flood but only after the
Governing Body has received an appropriate plan which
assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based
upon the flood warning time available. The Conditional Use
permit must be title registered with the property in the
Office of the County Recorder.
4.49 Accessory Structures:
(a) Accessory structures shall not be designed for human
habitation.
(b) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be
constructed and placed on the building sits so as to offer
the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters.
(1) whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with
the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood
flow, and, (2) So far as practicable, structures shall be
placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those
of adjoining structures.
c)Accessory structures shall be elevated on till or
structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1
or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Buildin
Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be
flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 flood proofing
classification in the State Building Code provided the
accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does
not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached
arage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking
of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed
accessory structures must meet the following additional
standards, as appropriate:
(1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and
shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls; and
(2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure
must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation or properly flood proofed.
4.46 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readilyremovable f om the area within the time available
after a flood warning�nd in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body.
4.47 Structural works for flood control that will change
the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands
or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural
works for flood control intended to remove areas from the
regulatory flood plain shell not be allowed in the floodway.
4.48 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway
shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional
flood and the technical analysis must assume equal
conveyance or storage lose on both sides of a stream.
SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF)
L5.1 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses ofnd or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the
derlying zoning use district(s). If no pre-existing,
derlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential non residential structure or use of a structure or landall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided suche does not constitute a public nuisance. All Permitted
Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe
^Permitted Uses" listed in Section 5.2 and the standards for
all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Conditional Uses" listed in
Section 5.5.
5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses:
5.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must
be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including
basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall
extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond
the outside limits of the structure erected thereon.
5.22 As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory
structures that constitute a minimal investment and that d
not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at
ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance
with Section 4.45 (c).
5.27 The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time_
in excess of one -thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is
located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a
Conditional Use, unless said fill is specifically intended
to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of
this ordinance.
5.24 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be
elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
5.25 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
5.7 Conditional Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on
fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 5.21-5.22
or any use of land that does not comply with the standards
in Section 5.27-5.24 shall only be allowable as a
Conditional Use. An application for a Conditional Use shall
be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation
procedures specified in Sections 5.4-5.5 and 10.4 of this
Ordinance.
5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Usess
3i41 Alternative elevation methods other than the use of
fll may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor
above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These
alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings,
parallel walls, etc., or above -grads, enclosed areas such as
C:
spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an
enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a
structure's basement or lowest floor i!; 1) if the enclosed
area is above—grade on at least one side of the structure;
2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with
flood resistant materials; and 7) is used solely for parkin4
of vehicles, building access or storage. The aboved-noted
alternative elevation methods are subject to the following
additional standards:
(a) Design and Certification - The structure's design and
as -built condition must be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect as being in compliance
with the general design standards of the State Building Code
and, specifically, that all electrical , heating,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation or be desigmed to prevent flood `
water from entering or accumulating within these components
during times of flooding.(b) Specific Standards for Above -
grade, Enclosed Areas - Above -grade, fully enclosed areas
such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed
to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate:
(1) The minimum area of openings in the valla where internal
flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. when
openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for
entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of
all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or
other coverings or devices provided that they permit the
automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
(2) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood
resistant materials in accordance with the FP -3 or FP -4
classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used
olely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage.
5.42 Basements, as defined by Section 2.812 of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to the following:
(a) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed
below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
(b) Non-residential basements may be allowed below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement
is structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section
5.43 of this Ordinance.
5.47 All areae of non residential structures including
basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the
structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Cods. Structurally dry flood pproofing must most
the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classification in the State
Building Code and this shall require making the structure
watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the
passage of water and with structural components having the
capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and the effects of bouyancy. Structures flood proofed to
the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted.
5.44 When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of
fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for
such activities as on-site storage, landscaping, sand and
gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal
or construction of flood control works, an
erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted unless
the community is enforcing a state approved shoreland
management ordinance. In the absence of a state approved
shoreland ordinance, the plan must clearly specify methods
to be used to stabalize the fill on site for a flood event
at a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The
plan must be prepared and certified by a registered
professional engineer or other qualified individual
acceptable to the Governing Body. The plan may incorporate
alternative procedures for removal of the material from the
flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists.
5.45 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readily removable from the area within the time available
alter a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body.
5.46 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
also apply.
5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses:
4.51 All new principal structures must have vehicular
access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet
below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. if a
'4eriance to this requirement is granted, the Board of
Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or
occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only
after determining that adequate flood warning time and local
flood emergency response procedures exist.
5.52 Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards,
railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower
than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a
permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or
the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a
flood warning system that provides adequate time for
evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater
than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than
four feet per second upon occurrence cE the regional flood.
5.57 Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be
taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations
especially along streams having protracted flood durations.
Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots
may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out
in Section 5.52 above. In considering permit applications,
due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry
whose business requires that it be located in flood plain
areas.
5.54 Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall
be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover
or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for
removing the special flood hazard area designation for
certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -
year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate
specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards
for multi -structure or multi -lot developments. These
standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of
site prepdration if a change of special flood hazard area
designation will be requested.
5.55 Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect
the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood
plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where
a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been
specified on the Official zoning Map.
5.56 Standards for travel trailers and travel vehicles are
contained in Section 9.3.
5.57 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system that resists
flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of
anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of
over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or loca l
anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
SECTION 6.0 Reserved for Future Use
SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS2
7.1 Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is
unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage,
water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots
within the flood plain districts shall contain a building
site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment
facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance
and have road access both to the subdivision and to the
individual building sites no lower than two feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. LFor all subdivisions
in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe
boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly
labelled on 2 all required subdivision drawings and platting
documents J
7.2 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established
criteria for removing the special flood hazard area
designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill
above the 100 -year flood elevation. PEMA's requirements
incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope
protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot
developments. These standards should be investigated prior
to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special
flood hazard area designation will be requested.
SECTION 8.0 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES
8.1 Public Utilities. All public utilities and facilities
such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to
be located in the flood plain shall be flood -proofed in
accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
8.2 Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks,
roads, and bridges to be located within the flood plain
shall comply with Sections 4.0 and 4.0 of this Ordinance.
Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall
be provided where failure or interruption of these
transportation facilities would result in danger to the
public health or safety or where such facilities are
essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or
auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower
elevation where failure or interruption of transportation
services would not endanger the public health or safety.
2 This Section is not intended as a substitute for a
comprehensive city or county subdivision ordinance. It can,
however, be used as an interim control until the
comprehensive subdivision ordinance can be amended to
include necessary flood plain management provisions.
8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems:
Where public utilities are not provided: 1) on-site water
supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or
replacement on—site sewage treatment systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into
flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or
contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage
treatment system designed in accordance with the State's
current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment
systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this
Section. l
SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS
AND PLIICEKIM OF TRAVEL TRAILERS AND TRAVEL VEHICLES.
9.1 New {anufactured} home parks and expansions to existing
mobilemenufacture ome parks shall be subject to the
previa ons placed on subdivisions by Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance.
9.2 The placement of new or replacement manufactured homes
in existing manufactured home parka or on individual lots of—
record that are located in flood plain districts will be
treated as a new structure and may be placed only if
elevated in compliance with Section 5.0 of this Ordinance.
If vehicular road access for pre-existing manufactured home
parks is not provided in accordance with Section 5.51, then
replacement manufactured homes will not be allowed until the
property owners) develops a flood warning emergency plan /
acceptable to the Governing Body.
9.21 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to art
adequately anchored foundation system that resists I
flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of
anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of
over-tho-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local
anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
9.3 Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do not meet the
exemption criteria specified in Section 9.71 below shall be
subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as
specifically spelled out in Sections 9. 71-9.34 below.
9.31 Exemption - Travel trailers and travel vehicles are
exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are
placed in eny of the areas listed in Section 9.32 below and
further tlaoy meet the following critariai
(a) Have current licenses required for highway use.
(b) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal
cking system, aro attached to the site only by quick
disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and
trailer parks and the travel trailer/travel vehicle has no
permanent structural type additions attached to it.
(c) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use
must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning
use district.
9.32 Areas Exempted For Placement of Travel/Recreational
Vehicles:
(a) Individual lots or parcels of record.
(b) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds.
(c) Existing condominium type associations.
9.33 Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in
Section 9.31 lose this exemption when development occurs on
the parcel exceeding _ dollars for a structural addition
to the travel trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory
structure such as a garage or storage building. The travel
trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and accessory
structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall
be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and
the use of land restrictions specified in Sections 4.0 and
/ 5.0 of this ordinance.
9.34 New commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks
or campgrounds and new residential type subdivisions and
` condominium associations and the expansion of any existing
\\similar use exceeding five (5) units or dwelling sites shall
be subject to the followings
(a) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle
will be new in the Ploodway or Flood Fringe Districts
provided said trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed
on fill above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
proper elevated road access to the site exists in accordance
with Section 5.51 of this Ordinance. Any fill placed in a
floodway for the purpose of elevating a travel trailer shall
be subject to the requirements of Section 4.0.
(b) All now or replacement travel trailers or travel
vehicles not meeting the criteria of (a) above may, as an
alternative, be allowed as a Conditional Use if in
accordance with the following provisions and the provisions
of 10.4 of the Ordinance. The applicant must submit an
emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and
people during the 100 year flood. Said plan shall be
prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified
individual and shall demonstrate that adequate time and
personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. All attendant
sewage and water facilities for now or replacement travel
trailers or other recreational vehicles blurt be protected or
constructed so as to not be impaired or contaminated during
times of flooding in accordance with Section 8.3 of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION
10.1 Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator
designated by the Governing Body shall administer and
enforce this ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a
violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning
Administrfor shall notify the person responsible for such
viol ationlin accordance with the procedures stated in
Section 12.0 of the Ordinance }
10.2 Permit Requirements:
10.21 Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning
Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection, addition,
or alteration of any building, structure, or portion
thereof; prior to the use or chsgqge of use of a building,
structure, or land; prior to thefchange or extension of a
nonconforming use; andprior to the placement of fill,
excavation of mat rials,.cr the storage of materials or
equipment within the flood' plain.
10.22 Application for Permit. Application for a Permit
shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on
forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall
include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate
drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions,
and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures,
fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the
foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
10.23 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit
or processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or
Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the
applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal
Permits.
10.24 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered,
or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy,
or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises
or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed,
converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure
until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have been
issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of
the building or land conforms to the requirements of this
Ordinance.
10.25 Construction and Use to be an Provided on
Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of
Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or
Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of
approved plans and applications authorize only the use,
arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved
plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or
construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at
variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of
this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 12.0
of this Ordinance.
10.26 Certification. The applicant shall be required to
submit certification by a registered professional engineer,
registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the
finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood -
proofing measures shall be certified by a registered
professional engineer or registered architect.
10.27 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning
Administrator shq11 maintain a record of the elevation of
the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures
nd alterations bbr additions to existing structures in the
flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a
record of the elevation to which structures and alterations
or additions to structures are flood -proofed.
10.3 Board of Adjustment:
10.31 Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for
the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers
conferred on such Boards by State law.
10.32 Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an
administrative offical in the enforcement or administration
of this Ordinance.
10.37 Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in
specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of
this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public
interest �nd only for those circumstances such as hardship,
practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the
property under consideration, as provided for in the
respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for
cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such
variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in
writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with
the criteria specified in the respective enabling
legislation which justified the granting of the variance3
No Variance shall have the effect of allowing in any
district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower
degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit
standards lower than those required by State law.
10.34 Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of
an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an
application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable
time for, hearing and give due notice to the parties in
interests as specified by law The Board shall submit by
mail Lo t e Commissioner o! atural Resources a copy of the
application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance
so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days
notice of the hearing.
10.38 Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on
such appeal or Variance within TO days. 11n
passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such
action is in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify
the order, requirement, decision or determination& f'the
Zoning Administrator or other public official.] It shall
make its decision in writing setting forth t findings of
fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a
Variance the Board may prescribe appropriate condition and
safeguards such as those specified in Section 10.46, which
are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance.
Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a _
part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall
be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under
Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Variances
shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.36 Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may
be made, Ond as specified in this Community's offical
Controls -And also Minnesota Statutes
10.37 Flood Ineurence Notice and Record Beeping. The Zoning
Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance
that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a
structure below the base flood level will result in
in premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as
high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such
construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level
increases risks to life and property. Such notification
shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such
variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted
to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
10.4 Con itiorjgl Uses. The
C4
(GovernIng g B y/Planning Comm./Bd. of Adjust.) shall hear
and decide applications for Conditional Uses permissible
under this ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to
the ZonipcjA inist ator who shall forward the application
to C, for consideration.
(Des gnated Body)
10.41 He$ring�. Upon filing with the
C� f• uNCi� an application for a
(De4nated Body)
Conditional Use Permit, the c shall submit
(Deannated Body)
by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten
days notice of the hearing.
10.42 Decisions. The �� shall arrive at
(Des ated Body)
a decision on a Conditional Use within qO days. in
granting a Conditional Use Permit the
�x &hallg prescribe appropriate
(Desigwted Body)
conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in
Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of
this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the
Conditional Use Permit is granted, shall be deemed a
violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0.
A copy of all decisions granting Conditional Use Permits
shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.47 Procedures to be followed by the
(Dee to Body)
in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications within all
Flood Plain Districts.
(a) Require the applicant to furnish such of the following
informationfarld additiRrial information as deemed necessary
by the for determining the suitability of
(Des q ated Body)
the particular site for the proposed use:,
(1) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the nature,
location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood-
proofing measures, and the relat onship of the above to the
location of the stream channel.
(2) Specifications for building construction and materials,
flood-proofing, filling, dredgqinq, grading, channel
improvement, storage of materiels, water supply and sanitary
facilities.
(b) Transmit one copy of the information described in
subsection (a) to a designated engineer or other expert
person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary,
in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood
heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to
the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other
technical matters.
(c) Based upon the technical 9vatuatiof the designated
engineer or expert, the oaw sohall determine the
(Des g ated Body)
specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the
suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood
hazard.
10.44 Pppctors Upon Which the Decision of the
C; Luv.v i. ( Shall Be Based. In passing
(Dee g ted Body)
upono itonal Upp applications, the
shall consider all relevant factors
(Designated[ Body)
specified in other sections of this ordinance, and:
(a) The danger to life and property due to increased flood
heights or velocities caused by encroachments.
(b) The danger that*materials may be swept onto other lands
or downstream to the injury of others,for they m block
bridges, culverts or other hydraulic s ructures
(c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and
the ability of these systema to prevent disease,
contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
(d) The susceptability of the proposed facility and its
contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on
the individual owner.
(e) The importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community.
(f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront
location.
(g) The availability of alternative locations not subject
to flooding for the proposed use.
(h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing
development and development anticipated in the forseeable
future.
(1) The relationship of the proposed use to the
comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for
the area.
(j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood
for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
(k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise,
and sediment transport of the flood water& expected at the
site.
(1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes
of this ordinance.
10.45 1 me for Ac ing on Application. The
shall act on an application in the
(De• g to Body)
manner described above within days from receiving the
application, except that where add tional information is
requiredursuant to 10.44 of this Ordinance. The
/" /a aiuc:I shall render a written decision within
(Desi'gna d Body)
--&& days from the receipt of such additional information.
10.46 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon
consideration of the fa c or li ted a ova and the purpose of
this Ordinance, the N shalgattach such
(Dea g a ed Body)
conditions to the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it
deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance.
Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply
facilities.
(b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
(c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed
restrictions.
(d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications,
compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective
measures.
(e) Flood -proofing measures, in accordance with the State
Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall
submit a plan or document certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect that the flood -proofing
measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular
area.
SECTION 11.0 NONCONFORMING USES
11.1 A structure or the use of a structure or premises
which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this
Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions
of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following
conditions:
11.11 No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or
altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
11.12 Any alteration or addition to a{nonconforming
structure} or nonconforming use which would result in
increasing t e flood damage potential of that(structuror
use shall betprotected to the Regulatory Floc! Protect on
Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or
flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , PP -1 thru FP -4
floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State
Building Code, except as further restricted in 11.17 below
11.17 The cost of any structural alterations cr 6dditioQ to
any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure
shall not exceed 50 percent of thefmarket32 value of the
structure ur�ess the conditions of this Section are
satisfied.a cost of all structural alterations and
additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's
Initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's
current cost which will include all costs such as
construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all
manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and
proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the
current market value of the structure, then the structure
must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this
Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively.
11.14 If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12
consecutive months, any future use of the building premises
shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify
the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of
nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period
of 12 months.
11.15. If any nonconforming use or truct re is destroyed by
any means, includin floods� to an{extmt�of 50 per nt or
more if its �arketivaluerat the t e of destructioJ it
shell not be econs ructe excpt in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance.The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new e ructures in Sections 4.0 or
5.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure
is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively}
SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
12.1 Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or
failure to comply with any of its requirements (including
violations of conditions and safeguards established in
connection with grants of Variances or Conditional Uses)
shell constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishablefas
defined by law
12 2 iothl g ruin contained shell prevent the
from taking such other lawful action
(loc8l unit)
as is necessary to prevent or remedyany vi lotion. Such
actions may include but are not limited to
Lbut
1 In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the
ng Administrator and local Government may utilize the
array of enforcement actions available to it including
not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions,
r -the -fact permits, orders for corrective measures or e
est to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial
lood insurance availability to the guilty party. Theunity must act in good faith to enforce these official
rols and to correct ordinance violations to the extent
/ possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the
/ National Flood Insurance Program.
I 12.22 When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or
brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the
Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the
situation and document the nature and extent of the
violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably
possible, this information will be submitted to the
appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal
IEmergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the
Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the
degree possible.
12.23 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected
party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other
Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspected
violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is
under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator
may order the construction or development immediately halted
until a proper permit or approval is granted by the
Community. If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) j
issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must
be made within a specified time period to bring the use or
structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2)
notify the responsible party to apply for an after -the -fact
permit/development approval within a specified period of
time not to exceed 30 -days.
12.24 If the responsible party does not appropriately
respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified
period of time, each additional day that lapses shall
constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and
shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator
shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period
notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition
which existed prior to the violation of this ordinance.
SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS
The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall
not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown
that the designation is in error or that the area has been
filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and
is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special
exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner
of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other
measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended
use.
All amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to
the official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved
by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.
Changes in the official Zoning Map must meet theftederal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical C nditions
and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before
adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be
given 10 -days written notice of all hearings to consider an
amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a
draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under
consideration
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
15. Public hearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment to off-
street aarkina requirements. ADDlicant, Citv of Monticello.
(J.0.)
A. REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
Attached you will find a revised list of proposed amendments
based on the input that the Planning Commission provided staff
at the previous meeting. Please note that staff has deleted
any proposed amendments to the parking space size requirements
at this time, pending further information to be submitted to
the City from the City Planner. It is suggested by staff that
the Planning Commission defer further consideration of changes
to the parking stall size until the City has a chance to
review ordinances now in place in other communities. This
item should be brought forward again for further review at
such time when better information is available.
The attached ordinance amendments that remain pertain to
parking lot surfacing and curbing requirements. In addition,
language permitting a stall isle and driveway design
conditional use permit and subsequent conditions is included.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Review and comment on each proposed amendment. Motion to
approve amendments as modified during discussion based on
the finding that the amendments are consistent with the
geography and character of the I-1 and the I-2 zones and
such amendments will not tend to depreciate the adjoining
land values of the properties affected by the proposed
amendment.
Planning Commission could take the position that the
conditional use permit process that regulates the
lessening of the parking lot hard surfacing and curb
adequately protects the adjoining properties from the
negative impact of less hard surfacing and curbing.
2. Motion to deny proposal to lessen the curbing and hard
surfacing requirement based on the finding that the
conditional use permit process proposed will not
sufficiently gaurantee the protection of adjoining
property owners and that the proposal is inconsistent
with geography and character of the I-2 zone.
Planning Commission could take the position that the
ordinance amendment as proposed are somewhat vague and
difficult to enforce and that the language by adding the
flexibility to the ordinance also makes room for the
Inconsistent application and potential abuse.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/1/90
Planning Commission could take the position that the
existing ordinance is clear cut and that it allows staff
to apply consistent treatment from one site plan to the
next and therefore, the ordinance should not be amended.
STAFF RECON14ENDATION:
Planning Commission and City Council have both indicated that
the curb requirement and hard surfacing requirement may be
slightly stringent and that the City should consider ordinance
amendments, which on a limited basis, provide the flexibility
that allow certain developments to install minimal drive areas
without curb or hard surfacing. The ordinance amendment
attached attempts to define these areas and provide the
flexibility that the Planning Commission and City Council
desire. It should be noted that this ordinance amendment
creating a conditional use permit will result in a review
process that may not always be consistent, and will add to the
staff work load by creating more conditional use casework. It
is not likely, however, that the number of conditional use
permits reviewed will be great and it is hoped that on most
occasions, industrial developments will not elect to utilize
this conditional use permit process when developing parking
and drive areas.
Unfortunately, time has not allowed for a full review of the
proposed amendments by the City Engineer or the Public Works
Department. Unless the Planning Commission is very
comfortable with the ordinance amendments, it is recommended
that this item be tabled.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed amendments to off-street parking
requirements.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
3-5:
1. Amendment to, D. 9 (al PARKING SPACE SIZE:
"Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9) feet wide
and twenty (201 feet In lerjyth exclusive of/access $isles, and
each space shall be serv4ad adequagely by access aisles.' -
2. Amendment to D. 9 (k) SURFACING:
All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and
driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control
dust and drainage. Except in the case of single family and
two family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced
with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous
topping or concrete equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles
shall be submitted to city staff for review. At the
discretion of city staff, the plans may be reviewed by the
City engineer and the final drainage plan shall be subject to
his written approval. No charges in addition to the building
permit fee shall levied for City Engineer review.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway design
conditional use permit
3. Amendment to D. 9 (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING:
Except for single, two family and townhouses, all open off-
street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the
entire aparking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer
than five (5) feet to any lot line. Grass, plantings or
surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering
the parking area.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall aisle and driveway deslgn
conditional use permit.
4. Amendment to D. 9 (r) CURBING:
I. All commercial and industrial off-street parking areas
and driveways in commercial areas shall have a six (6)
Inch nonsurmountable continuous concrete curb around the
perimeter of the parking area and driveways.
C/DS
ii. All off-street parking in the I-1 and I-2 districts shall
have an insurmountable curb barrier which, if not
constructed of six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing,
shall require prior approval from the Planning Commission
and City Council. Driveways in the I-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable continuous
concrete curb along its perimeter.
iii. All curb designs and materials shall be reviewed by City
staff. At the discretion of City Staff, designs and
materials may be also reviewed by the City Enqineer.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall aisle and driveway desiqn
conditional use permit.
5. D. 9 (a) Stall aisle and driveway design conditional use
permit.
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k)
Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) curbing may be
lessened subject to the following conditions:
a. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the
conditional use permit process outlined in chapter 22 of
this ordinance.
b. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans
associated with conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing the City Engineer. A cash deposit in
i an amount approximately equal to the cost of the
engineers shall submitted to the City prior to City
engineer
o �
\ c. Areas 1& intended for outside storage need not be
surfaced with bituminous topping or concrete equivalent.
�P
d. A surmountable "transistion" curb or cement delineator
must be installed as a boundary between an outside
storage area and a parking or drive area.
e. Development of a curb along the boundary between a
parking area and an area designated for future parking is
not required if said curb line is not needed for drainage
purposes as determined by the City Engineer.
V \ ` f. Driveways more than 20 feet in width that are never used
y by customers or the general public do not require curbing
unless- said curb ie needed for drainage purposes or
unless any part of said drivway perimeter is located
within 20 of an adjoining property.
g. Exceptions to the standard curb requirements do not apply
l to any parking or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel.
A
h. This conditional use permit is allowed only in I-1, I-2,
zones.
i. Drive areae never used by the general public and not used
as primary commercial drives ARYabY are not required to
be hard surfaced or curbOunless any part of said drive
area is located within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel.
` PZ