Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-06-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MORrICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 6, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Dan McOonnon, Mori
Malone
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 2, 1989.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Rearing - A variance request to allow a building
addition to be built within the side yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Bondhus Corporation.
7:49 p.m.
4. Public Bearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment to
Section 3-1, Non -conforming Buildings, Structures, and Uses,
which would allow limited expansion of non -conforming
residential uses in a 9-4 (regional business) zone.
Applicant, City of Monticello.
8:19 P.M.
S. Consideration of a previous Planning Commission
recommendation to zone Evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and e
to B-3 (highway business).
8:49 p.m.
6. A tabled conditional use request to allow expansion of an
open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in a B-4
(regional business) zone. A tabled conditional use request
to allow an expansion of an open and outdoor sales as a
principal and accessory use in a B-4 (regional business)
zone. Applicant, Pair -s Garden Center.
ADDITIONAL INPORMATION ITEMS
9:04 p.m.
1. Preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential
subdivision plat. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:06 P.M.
2. Rezoning request to rezone residential unplatted property
from R-3 (medium density residential) to PZM (performance
zone mixed). Applicant, J i R Properties. Council action:
Approved as per Planning commission recommendation.
9:08 P.M.
3. A variance request to allow 1) a perking lot to be
constructed within a 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line
requirements and 2) to allow a driveway curb cut to be in
excess of the 24 -foot maximum allowed. Applicant, J i R
Properties. Council action: No action needed, as the
variance request did not come before them.
9:10 p.m.
4. A variance request to allow a parking lot expansion to be
constructed within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line
requirement. Applicant, J i R Properties. Council action:
No action required, as the variance request did not come
before them.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 6, 1989
Page 2
9:12 p.m. 5. A variance request to allow an additional driveway curb cut
within 125 feet of street frontage. Applicant, First
National Bank. Council action: No action required, as the
variance request did not come before them.
9:14 p.m. 6. A conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and
outdoor storage as an accessory use in a B-4 (regional
business) zone. A conditional use request to allow an
expansion of an open and outdoor sales as a principal and
accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) zone. Applicant,
Pair's Garden Center. Council action: No action required,
as the request was tabled by the Planning Commission.
9:16 p.m. 7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 5, 1969, 7:30 p.m.
9:18 p.m. S. Adjournment.
MINUTES
RE=M MEETING - MONTICELW PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 2, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemur, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
and Dan McConnon
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemur, at
7:33 p.m.
2. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held April 4, 1989. Motion carried unanimously
with Richard Carlson absent.
3. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
minutes off the special meeting held April 20, 1989. Motion carried with
Richard Carlson absent and Cindy Imma abstaining.
4. Public Rearing - A preliminary plat request for a proposed new
resiaential subdivision plat. AppucanE, west Prairie Partners.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the background on the preliminary plat request for a proposed new
residential subdivision plat. Each lot in this seven -lot proposed
residential subdivision does meet the minimum lot size requirement, the
12,000 minimum square foot requirement, and minimum lot width. The
proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning that exists, R-2
(single and two family residential) zoning. All the items under the
preliminary plat review have been addressed in their entirety and have
been found to be in conformance.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lamm, then opened the meeting for input from
the public. Mr. Jim Metcalf, partner in West Prairie Partners, explained
to Planning Commisainn members that the City's consulting engineering
firm, Orr-Schelen-Meyeron 6 Associates, will be doing all the design
layout for the underground utilities and that the owners, West Prairie
Partners, will be contracting to have the services installed privately
under the supervision of OSM.
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lem,
then turned the meeting over for input from the Planning Commission
members. Questions raised from the Planning Commission members were
concerns of the dollar amount that would be allocated for park
dedication. Mr. O'Neill indicated the amount of money for park
dedication is 10 percent of the raw land cost prior to development.
Another question raised was where do the funds go for the park
dedication. Mr. O'Neill indicated the funds for the park dedication go
into a separate park development fund which is used to purchase and
develop other neighborhood parka in the city of Monticello.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan Mcconnon, to approve the preliminary
plat for the proposed new residential subdivision plat. Motion carried
unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
S. Public Rearing - A rezoning recluest to rezone residential unplatted
property from R-3 (medium density residential) to PZM (performance zone
mixed). Applicant, J 6 K Properties.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the proposed rezoning request as
submitted by the applicant, J 6 R Properties. The proposed rezoning to
PZM (performance zone mixed) will allow a flexible use of the property,
which can be limited commercial type uses and also multi -family
residential uses. Mr. O'Neill addressed the five factors that are to be
considered when addressing a rezoning request. They are as follows:
1. The relationship to the municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographic area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the meeting for any input
from the public. Mr. Ren Maus, partner in J 6 K Properties, explained to
Planning Commission members that with the unique configuration of the
land and its location between R-3 (medium density residential) and B-4
(regional business) zoning, the proposed zoning seems to be compatible
with the zoning uses around it. Some possible uses for the area adjacent
to Cedar Street would be uses currently allowed under 5-2 (limited
business) zoning, and the rear portion of this unplatted tract of land
could be used for R-3 (medium density) zoning. Mr. Maus also indicated
that J 6 R Properties has no future plane for the property at this time.
Mr. Russell Olson, a resident near the proposed rezoning, questioned if
anything would be happening to address some drainage problem which still
occur with the area to the rear of his lot from the interceptor sewer
line which was put in last year. Mr. Olson indicated he is experiencing
water ponding problems in the early spring prior to the frost going off
the ground, with water ponding in the rear of hie Iota adjacent to the
railroad tracks.
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Le®,
then closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Planning
Commission members. Questions were raised by the Planning Co®ission
membera as to whether there was an agreement to purchase the property on
behalf of the J 6 K Properties. Mr. Ren Maus answered that they do have
a contract to purchase the property with options contingent upon the
rezoning occurring on the property. One of the Planning Commission
members lives within the area and the blight that exists with this
pEgwrty, and she felt it would be very beneficial with the new proposed
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
purchasers of the property cleaning up the entire property and making it
a little more presentable to the public. questions were also raised of
the possible extension of Palm Street. It could be possible that to
develop the rear portion of this, the extension of Palm Street may be a
possibility at that time.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was
made by Dan MaConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the proposed
rezoning of the subject parcel from R-3 to PZM zoning. Motion to approve
is based on the finding that the proposal is 1) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plant 21 compatible with the geographic area and the
character of adjoining landat 3) the rezoning will not tend to depreciate
the area in which it is proposedt 4) the need for the proposed rezoning
has been sufficiently demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously with
Richard Carlson absent.
Public Hearin - A variance request to allow 1) a parking lot to be
constructea wltnln the b—root curb barrier to lot llfte requirements and
2) to allow a oriveway curb cut to be in excess or the 24-100t maximum
allowea. Applicant, J 6 K Properties.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the background of J 6 R Properties' variance request. The
applicants are proposing to construct a parking lot on an already platted
66' x 165' lot. Mr. Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
the public hearing notice was filed incorrectly on agenda item t2,
regarding the driveway curb cut in excess of the 24 -foot maximum. It
should have read the driveway aisle width less than the 24 -toot minimum
allowed. The applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot up to
within 3-1/2 feet of the property line on the west side of the propertyt
and on the south and the east aide of the property, the applicant is
proposing to construct the parking lot right up to the property line. In
the layout of the parking lot as designed with the minimum 20 -foot
parking space length, the applicant is showing a 22 -toot driving aisle
width, where the minimum allowed by ordinance is a 24 -foot driving aisle
width. The property would be drained in a southerly direction throughout
the parking lot into a catch basin, which would dump into a short section
of proposed storm sewer to be constructed which would tie into the main
storm sewer line on Cedar Street.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. With no
input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lem, then closed the
public hearing and asked for further input from the City staff or
Planning Coamission members. Mr. O'Neill questioned if shortening up the
parking space site to accommodate the minimum of 5 -foot curb barrier to
lot line on the west aide could be accomplished.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Dain McOmnon, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the variance
request to allow a parking lot to be constructed within the 5 -toot curb
barrier to lot line requirement on the south and east aide. Motion
carried unanimously with Richard Carlson abstaining.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
variance request to allow a 22 -foot driving aisle width where the minimum
required is a 24 -Loot driving aisle width, and a 19 -foot parking space
length where the minimum allowed is a 20 -foot parking space length.
Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson abstaining. Reason for
granting the variance is that there is sufficient green area from the
property line to the concrete curb on the west side of Cedar Street and
sufficient green area from the property line to the south aide of the
railroad tracks.
Public Rearing - A variance request to allow a parking lot expansion to
be constructed within the 5 -root curb barrier to lot line requirement.
Applicant, J 6 K Properties.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Planning Commission
members and the public the applicant's variance request to create
additional parking on their lot. The current parking lot when
established met and exceeded the minimum parking space requirements.
However, the owners of the Maus Food complex, Jim and Ren Maus, have
experienced a shortage at times of parking space within their parking
lot. The developers are proposing to be allowed to construct parking lot
right up to the property line on the east side of the property; and when
the rest of the lot is re -striped, they would like to boost the driving
aisle widths approximately 3-1/2 inches in width on each of the five
driving aisles which serve this parking lot.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemur, then opened the meeting for input from
the public. There being no input from the public, she then opened the
meeting for input from the City staff or the Planning commission
members. Planning Colmniesion member, Dan McConnon, suggested that the
City staff do further research to address the 9' x 20' parking space size
and the parking lot driving aisle width with other surrounding
communities and see where the City stands in relationship to these other
communities. with the smaller vehicles that are constructed today, maybe
our parking apace and driving aisle widths are too large by today's
standards.
With no further input from the Planning Coaaniesion members or the City
staff, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to
approve the variance request to allow a parking lot expansion to be
constructed within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line requirement. The
motion carried unanimously. Reason for granting the variance is that
there is sufficient green area from the property line to the concrete
curb on the west aide of Cedar Street;
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an additional driveway curb
cut within 123 rest or street i'rontage. Applicant, Pirst National Bank.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning commission
members and the public the First National Bank's proposal to be allowed
an additional curb cut on the north aide of their property immediately
west of their existing curb cut driveway entrance. The applicant would
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
like to re -do their parking lot creating an additional driving aisle
width to allow for two aisles of stacking on the west side of their
property as we come up to the drive -up teller lanes. On the south side
of their property, the applicant is proposing to install 13 additional
parking stalls to accommodate off-street parking for the employees of the
bank. They are also proposing to construct four additional parking
spaces up near the northeast corner of their parking lot.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy T , then opened the meeting for input from
the public. There was no input from the public other than the applicant,
Mr. Dale Pogatchnik, President of First National Bank, indicating the
proposed variance request had been addressed quite thoroughly in the
explanation previously given by Mr. Anderson.
There being no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input
from the Planning Commission members or City staff. Comments from the
Planning Commission members included that some of them have personally
experienced utilizing this facility for their banking, and at times it
can be congested with only one curb cut driveway entrance as it exists,
as it is almost located immediately south of the entrance of the Security
Pinancial driveway entrance. Questions were also raised about the two
driving aisle lanes that were to be created along the west side of the
property. Zoning Administrator Anderson explained to Planning Commission
members that these two lanes are created more so for stacking room of
care that are utilizing the drive -up facilities at the bank.
With no further input from the Planning Conunissicn members or City staff,
motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
the variance request to allow an additional driveway curb cut within
125 feet of ritreet frontage. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Public Hearingg - A conditional use request to allow expansion of an open
ana outonor sEoraye as an accessory use in a B -a ire
91onal business)
zone. A COnCitional use re
guest to allow an expansion or open and
outdoor sales as a princie-1 and accessory use in a 8-4 (regional
business) zone. Applicant, Pair's Carden center.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Planning Commission
members why there was no background submitted with the Planning
Commission agenda. Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, had sent a
letter to Mr. Kevin Pair, owner of Pair's Garden Center, on the 23rd of
March, 1989, requesting that he submit a site plan for the entire area
encompassing the late on which Pair's Garden Center now exists. Mr. Pair
did not submit a proposed site plan until approximately 11:30 on Friday,
April 28, for the City staff to review. With very little time to review
the site plan and the information as enclosed on the alto plan not being
what he was directed to submit on the site plan as per the letter from
Mr. O'Neill on the 23rd of March, 1989, the site plan was ant to the
Planning Coxaaission members with no background regarding the conditional
use request. At approximately 2)00 p.m., Tuesday, May 2, Mr. Fair did
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
stop into the City Hall offices and ask to review with City staff members
the site plan which he had submitted to the City on April 28. Mr. Rick
Wolfsteller, City Administrators Mr. John Simola, Public storks Director)
and Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, met with Mr. Pair for
approximately 1-1/2 hours to go over the mininum requirements that would
be required of him for the conditional use requests to be submitted on a
completely revised site plan. Planning Commission members felt very
uncomfortable with reviewing this conditional use request when no
information was submitted before them.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lem, then opened the meeting for input from
the public. Mr. Kevin Pair responded that he was under the understanding
that all he had to submit was the site plan showing where the buildings
sat on the property and that was it—that's all he was instructed to do.
And he has been busy with the seasonal business that he operates and has
not had the time to get it in on time to the City staff members for them
to review. Mr. Doug Pitt, adjoining property owner, questioned Planning
Commission members why they would not let Zoning Administrator, Gary
Anderson, explain to the Planning Commission members the applicant's
conditional use request which they had reviewed with Mr. Pair earlier in
the afternoon. This existing business has been expanded for over a year
now and to allow expansion to occur any longer without going through the
proper conditional use process seemed fruitless without addressing it at
this time rather than waiting to schedule a new public hearing, which
would be approximately one month away from tonight's meeting.
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemur,
then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the
Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members were very
upset that the information wasn't submitted in detail; therefore, motion
was meds by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to table the
conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and outdoor storage
as an accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) zone. And also to table
the conditional use request to allow an expansion of an open and outdoor
sales as a principal and accessory use in a B-4 (regional business)
zone. Motion carried unanimously.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Consideration of a joint governmental unite meeting.
The consensus of the Planning Commission members that the June 5, 1989,
joint meeting would be an appropriate date for them.
Final plat for proposed new residential subdivision known as the
evergreens.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members that a final
plat request according to the ordinance does not need Planning Ommission
action prior to the City Council for their final approval. The Planning
Commission members felt that even though the ordinance may stipulate that
Planning Cow'esion Minutes - 5/2/89
it doesn't need Planning Oocunission review prior to final review and
approval by the City Council, they would still like to see all final
plats Dome before them prior to the City Council reviewing them.
Mr. O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission members there had been no
changes from the preliminary plat and that the final plat is in order
except for the 30 -day waiting period for the HIS (Environmental Impact
Statement) process to be reviewed.
2. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9(E14 and 3-9(E14(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign
area, and the number per business along Highway 25/I-94 corridor in the
city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Comaiesion recommendation.
3. An appeal of a variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and
sign area. Applicant, Security Pinancial. Council action: Denied as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
4. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-2(G)3(b)R D of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to regulations of cowmercial/industrial property
landscaping. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
5. Consideration of preparing amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
which would allow auto body shops as a conditional use within a business
zone. Applicant, City of Monticello/Monticello Auto Body. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation with an
additional condition. The addition which was increased was the
30 percent of the principal use of the building for outside fenced -in
storage, and that was increased to 50 percent of the principal use for
screened outside storage.
6. A conditional use request to allow Monticello Auto Body to operate an
auto body ahop at Block 2, Lot 4, Sandberg South Addition. Applicant,
Monticello Auto Body. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
7. Consideration of a preliminary plat approval, proposed expansion of East
Rjellberg Mobile Home Park, and consideration of amendments to the City
of Monticello zoning map. Applicant, Rent Rjellberg. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Oommission recommendation.
8. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Mori Malone, to set the next
tentative date for the Monticello Planning ooataission meeting for June 6,
1969, 7:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/89
9. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by !tori Malone, to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zoning Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
3. public Nearing - A variance request to allow a building addition to be
bunt within the sloe yara setback requirement. Applicant, Bandhus
Corporailoki. (G.A.f
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bondbus Tool Corporation, which will be represented at the Planning
Oo®nission meeting by Mr. Dick Van Allen, is proposing to be allowed to
construct a beat treat addition to their existing building, which would be
within the side yard setback requirement. The proposed building addition,
which is called a heat treat expansion addition, will be located adjacent
to its existing heat treat facility. The building addition is just large
enough to accommodate the equipment for the new beat treat facility
expansion. The proposed expansion is proposed in its location where it is
immediately adjacent to the existing heat treat facility in that any other
location would take up additional off-street parking space, and would also
encounter the movement of their existing well which provides the water for
this entire facility and the removal of the main electrical transformer
box for this facility.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a building addition to be built
within the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a building addition to be built
within the aide yard setback requirement.
C. STA" RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recckmends approval of the variance request to allow a building
addition to be built within the aide yard setback requirement. The
existing parking spaces which would be lost by the proposed building
addition would be so marked in another portion on their site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request( Copy of the site
plan for the proposed variance request.
10
G
N
FARKIZ
� � Apq rrr
l
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
4. Consideration of ordinance amendment which would allow limited expansion
of a non -conforming residential structure in the B-4 (regional business)
district. (J.O .)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
R.D. Quick requests that Planning Commission consider this amendment
which would directly affect his property at 113 East Fourth Street,
Monticello. According to the attached site plan, Mr. Quick desires to
construct a 500 -foot addition to his existing structure which would
replace a 72 sq ft porch. In addition, Mr. Quick wishes to remove a
small one -car garage and an old shed on his property and replace it with
a two -car garage. Mr. Quick is unable to complete his proposed
alterations and expansions to his existing residential use because under
the ordinance as it now exists, alterations may be made to a building
containing a lawful non -conforming residential unit when the alteration
will improve the livability thereof, provided that the alteration does
not increase the number of dwelling units or size or volume of the
building. It was determined that approaching Mr. Quick's problem via the
City ordinance amendment process versus the variance process is more
appropriate, as Mr. Quick's request, if in the form of a variance, could
not be legally granted, as there are no grounds for a variance. In
addition, granting a variance without sufficient grounds sets a precedent
which then must apply to every other residential structure located in the
9-4 district. The ordinance amendment process was initiated, as it
provides a direct method of establishing City policy with regards to
expansion of a non -conforming residential use.
BITE PLAN REVIEW
Although this ordinance amendment would affect a wide area, the following
is a brief review of the site plan presented by Mr. Quick and its impact
on adjoining properties. As noted earlier, Quick's net expansion to his
existing residential structure amounts to 428 sq ft. In addition, he
plans on replacing a small 1 -car garage with a 1-1/2 or 2 -car garage. He
also will be replacing an old shed in the rear of the property. The
value of the existing structures will be increased by approximately
50 percent with the proposed expansion.
The Quick residence is located at wt 3, Block 33. This entire block is
zoned commercial. To the weet of the Quick residence is the Bridge water
Telephone Company parking lot. Quick's inprovemente would affect Bridge
Nater if the telephone company planned on expansion of their conforming
use. Cost to expand will increase. To the north, east, and south are
non -conforming residential structures. Please see the attached map for
more location information.
CHAPTER 22, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
As always, when an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is proposed, the
Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the
proposed amendment. It's judgement shall be based upon, but not limited
to, the following factors: 1) relationship to municipal Comprehensive
Plane 2) the geographic area involved) 3) whether such use will tend to
:F1,
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed: 4) character of the
surrounding area; and 5) the demonstrated need for such use. Following
is a staff review of decision factors above.
Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan speaks both directly and indirectly to this
proposed amendment. Comprehensive Plan policies that apply to this
situation do not appear to be consistent. Planning Commission is asked
to review these policies and determine the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan. Following are the policies that seem to apply to the proposed
amendment. Policies that seem to support the proposed amendment are as
follows:
General housing policy 94 states that residential uses should be
permitted to mix with commercial or industrial uses unless it can be
demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will be in
conflict.
Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the proposed amendment
are as follows:
Community development policy 17 states that all land uses should be
located so as to relate properly to surrounding land uses in the general
land use pattern of the urban area. In general, similar type land uses
should be grouped to serve as functional unite.
Commercial policy i9 states that boundaries of commercial districts shall
be well defined so so to prevent intrusion into residential areas.
Residential areae must be properly screened from the associated
ill-effecte of adjacent and nearby commercial area.
The Planning Commission must determine whether or not allowing a
residential non -conforming use to expand will have a detrimental effect
on the S-4 district. The proposed amendment should be adopted if It can
be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will not be
in conflict.
The geographic area involved and character of area
At this time, the character of the 8-4 area is typified by a mixture of
residential and business use. Attached you will find a map which shows
all of the residential structures now located in a B-4 district. The
vast majority of the residential structures are being used for
residential uses and are, therefore, non -conforming. Within the downtown
B-4 district, thero are 17 residential structures of which 5 are being
used for commercial purposes and 1 of those 5 are being used for both
commercial and residential uses. it is likely that over time, with the
increased population growth in the area and the concurrent increased
demand for commercial services, the residential structures and uses will
diminish over time.
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
The proposed amendment may have an impact on future redevelopment
activities. It is likely that sometime in the future, the City and/or
BRA, working with private developers, will participate in redevelopment
activities which will require purchase and demolition of residential
structures to make way for expansion of commercial activity in the
business core of the community. This amendment may result in further
investment in potential redevelopment areas which will result in higher
redevelopment costs. The extent to which the increased redevelopment
cost will hamper development of conforming uses is very difficult to
estimate. Planning Commission may wish to take the position that
allowing limited expansion to residential uses in the B-4 district will
not significantly or measurably harper development of conforming uses.
Please note, however, that, in this case, further development of the
non -conforming Quick property will reduce the ability of Bridge Water
Telephone to expand at its present location. This will be one of the
negative effects of the proposed amendment.
Business expansion and development along Highway 25 has been consistently
strong. In reality, the "mainstreet" of Monticello has shifted or is
shared with Broadway. It is staff's view that the business trend will
continue that has brought about the near complete development of the
Highway 25 corridor to a depth of two city blocks.
Approval of the proposed amendment will slow the process of transition
from residential to commercial and as such, it works at cross purposes
with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, to what degree it will slow the
transition is difficult to say.
In the past few years, one residential structure was removed to provide
room for the Bridge Water parking lot. Another structure (Clifford
Olson) will likely be removed soon. Once the Olson property is removed,
it is likely that the property to the east of Olson's will be considered
for removal, as this potential commercial space will he needed in
combination with the Olson property in order to provide sufficient space
for a commercial development.
"a demonstrated need for such use
Mr. Quick has demonstrated his individual need for the amendment.
Mr. Quick has made a significant investment in his existing property and
wishes to improve it further. Without the proposed amendment,
Mr. Quick's need cannot be satisfied at the present location. At the
same time, however, Planning Commission must review this situation in
terms of the overall community need. Is there a need to allow expansion
of residential uses in the B-4 district? A case could be made that there
is not a need to expand residential uses in the B-4 district simply
because there are many other residential areas in the city that are zoned
properly for residential development. Individuals living in the B-4
districts do have the option of enlarging their living space by
developing homes in properly zoned areas of the community. This option,
of course, requires a considerable individual investment and, therefore,
may not be palatable for many individuals living in the B-4 zone.
Planning Co®mission Agenda - 6/6/89
The absence of a demonstrated community need for such use could be noted
as a factor contributing toward denial of this proposed amendment. At
the same time, Planning Oommission is not bound to deny the amendment
because community need has not been demonstrated.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 3-1 IJl of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow expansion of
residential structures in the 5-4 district provided that the value of
expansion does not constitute more than 50 percent of market value of
existing structure.
Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character and geography of
the area. The amendment will not depreciate the value of adjoining
lands.
2. Motion to recommend denial of proposed amendment, as it is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is not in keeping with the
character of the H-4 zone, and the applicant has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate the need for the amendment.
C. STAFF RECO9OUTION:
The text of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to treatment of
non -conforming uses provides the City with the planning tools that can be
used to encourage "correction" of existing non -conforming lard uses. The
proposed amendment will impact the ability of the City to eliminate or
amortize the non -conforming residential use over a period of time. By
adopting the amendment, the Planning Commission will be extending the
time period of non -conforming use. In the case of residential structures
in a B-4 zone, planning Commission may not have a problem with extending
the life of non -conforming residential use because the conflicts between
uses are not severe, and the benefits of strict adherence to the current
ordinance are not immediately or clearly evident.
A strong recommendation is difficult to develop in this case. Both aides
of the argument have a good case. The easy decision is to allow the
amendment to occur and hope that the negative effects are minimal. It
may just so happen that Mr. Quick will be the only homeowner out of 33
that will ever expand his tame. On the other hand, it is staff's view
that the property within two blocks of Highway 25 between Maus Foods and
Broadway will continue to increase in value as commercial property. It
is likely that within a reasonable period, the entire area may witness
cormmercial development as prescribed on the zoning map. ?his amendment
will inhibit this process.
D. SUPPORTING DAM
Inventory of non -conforming residential structures in the 04 districts
o Excerpts from Coxprehensive Plans Proposed text of amendment to
Section 3-1 IJI of the Monticello Zoning Ordinances Quick site plane --
A -existing, D -proposed.
.5-
CHAPTER 3
GENERAL PROVISIONS
current Ordinance reads:
(J] Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non -conforming
residential units when they will improve the livability thereof provided
they will not increase the number of dwelling units or size or volume of
the building.
Proposed Ordinance to read:
(J] Alterations or expansion may be made to a building containing or related
to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when said alteration or
expansion will improve the livability thereof provided the alteration or
expansion will not increase the number of dwelling units and provided
that such alteration or expansion shall not constitute more than
50 percent of estimated market value. Said value shall be determined by
city or county Assessor. Ali irl bay/; s 4aloe ofed wits Rew.e6-./.. /
Vo,-CfuAr CWeW0q;d , Aoaot Mot! Q-/ lyAed FZIta:,a��••�••/S
(D
C0MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
A 'policy' is an official course of action adopted either
legislatively or administratively and followed by local government in
striving to attain the desired community goals. The following policy
statements are suggested for the City of Monticello.
1. The Comprehensive Plan is considered to be a flexible guide to
decision making rather than an inflexible blueprint for
development. The Plan will be continually reviewed and amended
as necessary in the light of changing conditions and needs
consistent with the aspirations of the citizens. Any proposed
amendment of the Plan, however, must be equal to or an
improvement over prior plans.
2. Broad citizen interest and participation in the planning process
will be encouraged.
1. The principle of representative government will be maintained in
the local neighborhood sentiment but will not be the sole factor
considered in evaluating development proposals. Bound planning
principles based upon factual evidence will be the primary
consideration.
1. The function of* the Planning Commission shall be toi maintain
the City Plan; make recommendations on development proposals
(private and public); serve to provide the general public with
information noccoaary to intelligent decision making; consider
aesthetic as well as dollar costs and values; and serve in an
advisory capacity to the City Council.
S. Urban development guides and controls shall be efficiently and
properly administered by City staff and/or consultants.
6. Any proposed change in zoning, subdivision practice, or other
development, but which is not consistent with the City Plan,
shall not be considered until there has been an amendment to
that Plan, said amendment to be reviewed and noted by the
Planning Commission.
7. All land uses should be located so as to relate properly to
surrounding land uses and the general land use pattern of the
urban area. In general, similar type land uses should be
grouped to serve as functional units.
B. The guiding factor in land use control should be the
consideration of density. Such standards are to be incorporated
in the zoning regulations and govern dwelling units permitted
per acrol traffic generation elements, and the like. The
control of density is the key factor in planning for utilities,
streeto, and other facilities which have a relationship between
capacity and demand.
I
GENERAL ROUSING POLICIES
In Monticello, urban planning should be designed to promote high
standards for residential development and help to assure the best
possible living environment.
1. The Planning Commission, in coordination with.the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, will be advocates for 'reform of land
use controls, increased housing funding, governmental and
legislative changes, and in general, act to increase public
awareness of housing problems and solutions. The Commission
will evaluate the City's regulatory codes and ordinances to
insure that these regulations provide maximum opportunity to
develop a range of housing types at various income levels and
permit utilization of innovative site development and
construction techniques.
2. Attempts will be made to develop and implement affirmative
programs for open housing. Open housing is housing that is
available to all persons without regard to race, creed, color,
sex, or ethnic background.
3. New housing areas shall be provided utilities as they expand
toward the perimeter of the City.
t. Residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or
industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the
residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict.
5. Developments shall be designed to racpect the natural features
of the site to the maximum extent feasible.
6. Development proposals will be evaluated with respect to their
potential effect upon adjacent and nearby developments and their
effect upon the public welfare of the City and adjacent
communities.
7. Developments must be developed according to well conceived plans
that tend to unify and relate to each other; developments that
are a hodge-podgo and ill-conceivod will be disapproved.
8. Within the OAA, a density of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot
area per dwelling unit will be promoted in the areas of utility
service contiguous to tho present city and in those areas where
central utility service construction is contemplated within five
yearn.
9. Although anticipated densities in areas capable of utility
service 'within five years may be designed at 10,000 to 12,000
square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, building permits
shall not be issued for a density of more than one dwelling unit
per 2.5 acres with on-site sewer systems based upon paroolation
testa.
M
COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
functions should occur both in the central business district and
the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94.
2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the
needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community levels
commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring
large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 25.
4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
5. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is
benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having e
better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason,
"strip" and "spot" commercial development should not be
permitted.
6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 91 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime
commercial land nor spread the uses so an to not be definable so
a "viable commercial area%
7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
Integrated buoineoe center developed according to a specific
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
B. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re -zoned to commercial
use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance
with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Flan.
9. Boundariee of commercial dietricto shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areacl residential areas
must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
1
v ZONING
Figure 6 indicates the anticipated principal land uses of the City.
The legal mechanism that controls or manages the development process
is zoning, which is the use of the government's police power to
regulate land use in order to promote and protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. A Zoning Ordinance consists of both a zoning
text and a zoning map. (Figure 11) The text describes the different
districts and types of uses allowed in each district. The map
delineates the various geographic districts within the community. A
Zoning Ordinance divides the jurisdictional area into different
districts such as residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural districts. These major districts are often divided into
sub -districts for the purpose of segregating special uses within the
major categories. For example, apartment units will be segregated
from single family homes in the residential districts. Within an
industrial district, heavy industry will be segregated from light
industry. Within the commercial district, regional shopping centers
will be segregated from neighborhood convenience shopping uses. It
should be noted, however, that the quality of a zoning ordinance is
not necessarily determined by the number of districts it contains.
The number of districts is determined in part by the type of
Comprehensive Plan and in part by the degree of urbanization that has
taken place within the community. Some zoning ordinances contain
many districts in`order to reflect the conditions which existed at
the time the ordinance was adopted. This is especially true within
older communities.
4 Zoning ordinances are not retroactive and therefore, land uses
existing at the time the ordinance was adopted and which do not
conform to the ordinance ace allowed to continue in a non -conforming
basis. Fbr example, a commercial use within a single family
neighborhood which later was zoned for single family residential uses
would be allowed to continue as a non -conforming use. Non -conforming
uses are not usually permitted to expand by adding onto the building
or otherwise upgrading the operation. In fact, moot jurisdictions
prohibit the reconstruction of a non -conforming use if it is more
than fifty percent (500) destroyed by fire, lightning, or natural
causes.
some communities have adopted provisions in their zoning ordinances
which attempt to eliminate or amortize the non -conforming use over a
period of time. The time period varies and is dependent upon ouch
factors as the amount of investment in the use, the looses to the
property owner due to the elimination, and the coot of relocation.
The time period is usually shorter for uses which may cause a
nuisance, such as junk yardo, or unsafe and dilapidated billboards.
Zoning is just one of the several devices used in the implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the zoning ordinance should be
based upon and prepared in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan.
7 The procedures for administering the zoning ordinance differ
substantially between communities. Unfortunately, many communities
-72-
U
t
do not follow the proper procedures which often results in their
decisions having been overturned by a court of lav when challenged by
prospective developers. For example, in those instances when public
hearings are required, it is important not only to hold the public
heating but to follow the proper legal requirements for public notice
In a legal newspaper.
A common mistake in the application of the Zoning Code involves the
double standard. For example, different procedures may be used
depending upon whether the applicant is a longtime resident of the
community or a developer. It should be emphasized that the law does
not recognize differences between applicants and that the same
procedures must be used regardless of the background and stature of
the applicant.
The following are some questions which should be raised when
proposals for zoning amendments, variances, and conditional use
permits are brought before the Planning Commission.
ZONING AMENDMENT
1. Has there been a change in the development policies of the
community?
2. Has there been a change in the conditions in the community such
as rapid population or development change?
3. Was there a mistake made in the development of the original
zoning ordinance which needs to be corrected?
4. Is the zoning ordinance up to data?
S. Does the proposed amendment conform to the intent of the
Comprehensive Development Plan?
6. Is the proposed use compatible with adjacent land uses?
7. Is the proposed amendment and land use likely to lead to a
monopoly situation so as to amount to a spot zoning?
S. what to the affect of the proposed rezoning on such public
utilities as sanitary sewers, water, roads, schools?
9. will the proposed development place an undue financial burden on
the local community?
ZONING VARIANCE
1. Does the coning ordinance and its standards and regulations lead
to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the part of the
property owner in the use of his property?
.77-
aaR Kp
I @R, K;t
Qatti
L R -K pcwd all
uN4�.,; stied "
34'
g' F u n f^cA•LF
• a5¢asc,J FOYcl.
STa�I q•
133
I
)o old Ske4
.a'
)o old Ske4
Also
CIas,
SeparatelY /1
Mode Ex;sti'hq
62"1 d to
R e p1 tce 01cl
66'
zkaatJ
L��G� $CA.% Q�COtdj
H
*t?k�ir�'c �
CdNVI�t v. � •to�;�
Add r Sic,/
$cwt@ esSicuSq��
4 i
s• �a� ;
ao+ �F, IcP�„�
Add r aa+aCat
�'f api�ee✓
3 Allewcj
dS
Also
CIas,
SeparatelY /1
Mode Ex;sti'hq
62"1 d to
R e p1 tce 01cl
66'
.lssl I11 Ise�oolsel I Isa�so� ` �1 I� et fp �slsal»js\�qe IS
ooMe--
so so
I
H
1 n (nI 0 I 1 0
e0
(C 0...HWY. 75 )
8 8 7 8 O 16 11 0`�l 9 I
a o Is-- sf o ff+
s` fs of ss ff Fa
lo 6 1 6 10 .6 10 .6-
NLn i
' �• . I — � I F--
1 S I •I S.� -01 S+ ?r •,� d 1 ��•
fa fe ff fe = na
F I�_j
f5 1 5
• I� l I I .� • � � Iy:w ,
• 1 Pimp+ ��
13
51. 1Lo
1"I`}Ia� fa ae a. fo�
6�
LAND USE GUIDE ,a so .0
FIGURE 18 10 ? W
� tr METMY •0.
or R.aiDzmiAL Log ImmmIAL J Z 1 'h
O1UL1Iru Rgalm"I . El wauc
? • a I
Wltla7lCL1W 7 nom- —nye-`
33- LO t0.l 'Oder
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
5. Consideration of a previous Plannin,
.jCommission recommendation to zone
Evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and B to B-3 (highway business). Q.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed Planning Commission recommendations regarding the
Evergreens Subdivision and approved all recommendations except Planning
Commission's recommendation to rezone the entire area encompassed by
Outlots A and B from agricultural to B-3 (highway business) use.
Planning Commission's recommendation was not rejected. However, Council
did ask the Planning Commission to review the recommendation at a
subsequent meeting. Planning Commission is, therefore, again asked to
address this topic and either reaffirm the previous recommendation or
adopt a new recommendation.
The main reason why Council requested that Planning Commission review
this topic again is because staff discovered portions of the
Comprehensive Plan that appeared to be at variance with the Planning
Commission's previous decision. This information was not made available
to the Planning Commission during its reviews and, therefore, the City
Council decided to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission with
the new information at hand.
Following is a summary provided to the City Council along with a list of
alternative actions and a staff recommendation.
As stated earlier, the proposal to rezone this entire area to B-3 zoning
may not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial policy 15
on page 45 of the Comprehensive Plan states that "commercial areas should
be as compact as possible. compact commercial areas are particularly
advantageous for commercial uses, as they concentrate shopping and
parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to residential
areas and having a better control over parking and traffic needs. For
this reason, strip and spot commercial development should not be
permitted." Allowing the entire portion of Outlote A and B to develop
commercially could constitute encouragement of strip or spot commercial
development, which is adverse to the commercial policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a copy of the proposed land use plan which does not show
cmmaoercial activity extending to the outlots proposed for rezoning.
Commercial activity appears to be limited to those areas near the
intersection of Highway 25 and 94 and do not extend as a strip along
Highway 25 towards this subdivision. Please note, however, that the
Compreheneive Plan does not show multi -family housing in this area
either. In rezoning this area from agricultural to B-3 use, Planning
Commission needs to be sensitive to the geography and character of the
adjoining properties. To the east across the fruntage road will exist an
R-1 development. Development of the B-3 or highway business use in such
close proximity to the R-1 use will likely create significant conflicts
unless site plan measures are taken to control the commercial
developments on Outlota A and B. As the Zoning Ordinance now exists,
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
there are minimal site plan requirements of businesses that would locate
in a B-3 area. In other words, the City would not be able to require
additional site development measures that would lessen the impact of the
B-3 activity on the R-1 uses. Following is a list of uses that can be
located in the B-3 zone. These are all uses that are allowable without a
conditional use permit.
Barber shops and beauty parlors
Essential services
Convenience grocery stores
Laundromat
Commercial offices
Government buildings
Bakery
Banks
Bicycle sales and repair
Candy shop
Drug store
Florist shop
Grocery store
Hardware
Meat market
Auto accessory store
Comamrcial recreation area
Motel
Restaurant
Private club
Print shop
Following are uses that could be allowed as conditional uses:
Drioe-in and convenience food establishments
Minor auto repair
Animal pet clinic
Oo®ercial storage
Daycare center
Car washes
Gas station
Now and used automobile and truck sales
Consignment or auction sales
Go-cart track
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to rezone entire area encompassed by Outlots A and B from
agricultural usage to B-3 (highway business).
Thie alternative is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, as 9-3
activity is better suited in compact commercial areae. Approval of
this alternative would require that the Comprehensive Plan be changed
7 to allow strip or spot commercial development along Highway 25.
r Under e-3 zoning, the City has no ability to control site development
In order to mitigate negative impact on nearby R-1 zoning.
-7-
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
2. !lotion to rezone Outlote A and B from agricultural usage to PZM
usage.
This alternative will allow development flexibility and special
design control within the sensitive area between an R-1 development
and Highway 25. The performance zoning district attempts to create a
reasonable balance between the interest of the property owner in
freely developing his property, and at the same time protect the
interest of surrounding properties. The purpose of the PZM use
zoning district is to provide a land use transition between high
density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses,
as well as the inter -mixing of such land use. Uses allowed in the
PZM zoning district include all uses within the R-3 or high density
residential district subject to the standards contained in the R-3
district regulations. Also allowed in the PZM zone are retail
activities found in the B-2 (limited business) district. The purpose
of the B-2 (limited business) district is to provide for low
intensity, retail, or service outlets which deal directly with the
customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses
allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on e
limited community market scale and located in areas that are well
serves Dy collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of
residential districts. Many of the uses allowed in the B-3 zone are
also allowed in the PZM zone. However, PZM zoning requires a
conditional use permit.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends rezoning of Outlote A and B to PZM zoning for the
following reasons:
1. Potential negative impacts of commercial development can be
mitigated by the PZM conditional use process.
2. Multi -family development could occur under PEM regulations. Such
development must follow regulations contained in the R-3 district
requirements. This provides the developer with some flexibility
in developing the property for commercial or residential use.
3. The purpose of the PEM zoning is to allow development of retail
businesses that have a limited market area. Allowing development
of ouch businesses to occur in this area will not significantly
detract from the Comprehensive Plan goal of centralizing regional
and highway business activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site location maps excerpts from Comprehensive Plan. Please see your
Zoning Ordinance for detail regarding PZM zone.
-e-
SOILS ASSIFI"TIM AND
THE /;
EVERGREENS
tG
COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
functions should occur both in the central business district and
the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94.
2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the
needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community levels
commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
]. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring
large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 24.
4. The location of now shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is
benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having Ta
better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason,
•strip• and 'spot' commercial development should not be
permitted.
6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime
commercial land not spread the uses so as to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area%
7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
integrated business center developed according to a specific
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
B. All major commercial arena shall be pce-zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re-Zcned to commercial
use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance
wltt the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential &teas; residential &case
must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
-48-
10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital
improvements program and budget which establishes priority
schedules far five or six years in advance based on projections
of need and estimated revenues.
l
11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments for
people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups
throughout Monticello.
12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony
with the natural environment and where adequate services and
facilities ace available.
17. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor
maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible.
14. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact
and well-planned areas by discouraging 'spot' and 'st:ip'
business development.
15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment
base so that persons can live and work in Monticello.
16. To develop high quality industrial areas which are free from
nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors,
vibrations, glace, dust, and other objectionable features.
17. To purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early
date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban?
development or land costs render acquisition hopeless.
18. To develop public utilities and services that are well planned
and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest
possible operating and maintenance costs.
19. To evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to
develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the
public streets.
20. To protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes
onto a relatively few major streets.
C
1
=1L�`
\ iM -.i .�` 1�\� 1 `\I, �` �'����✓�� fly.•.
o� � .. -::.' ' ' V sem'•"•' �.
.. .� � 1, L L •.��a,► � Y^ ,,• .. ,'.�: ��
nd Use tom' ;i:::'r ;,,s"'•
Jam/
Planning Conmmission Agenda - 6/6/89
6. A tabled conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and
outdoor storaas an accessory use in a B -a (regional ousiness) zone. A
io
tabled conditnal use reguesE to allow an expansion or an open and
outdoor sales as a principal and accessory use 1n a B-4 treg anal
business) zone. Applicant, Fair's Garden Center. tJ.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Despite Planning Commission's extension, Kevin Fair was unable to provide
adequate site plan information in time for variance related notices to be
sent. It seems clear by the information provided to this date that one
or more variances will be needed. Therefore, unless Fair will commit to
a site plan that requires no variances, the Planning Commission cannot
act to grant a conditional use permit. Although Pair has provided some
site plan information, he has failed to supply information that is
critical for a proper site plan review. For instance, building setback
and parking lot dimensions are not yet available. The absence of
adequate information leaves the Planning Commiasion the following
alternatives.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Recommend denial of conditional use permit. Recommend that Council
take legal action against Fair for expanding the operation without
proper permits.
Alternative 91 is desireable, as it sends a message that the City is
serious about enforcement of its Zoning Ordinance and that the City,
as a business, cannot tolerate the added administrative cost
associated with uncooperative action or inaction by an applicant.
The long term benefit of this action might be to create credibility
and improve responsiveness of future applicants. The short term cost
will include legal fees and significant staff time.
2. Continue to table matter pending development of a complete
development plan.
By continuing to extend the public hearing to a subsequent meeting,
Planning Oomaission is in a sense rewarding an applicant for not
providing proper information on a timely basis. At the same time,
though the information provided is less than adequate, acme effort
was made by the applicant. Planning Commission might wish to extend
the hearing another month based on this "good faith" effort. In
addition, enacting the legal process to gain relief will require
additional coat and may not noceasartly result in a solution
desireable for either party.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
7 Staff recommends that Planning Commission table the matter and direct
I�L applicant to meet with City staff no later than June 9, 1989, for the
purpose of defining additional information requirements in precise
terms. The results of this meeting to be documented and incorporated
11115
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/89
into future decision making. As part of action to table, Planning
O=mission should require that the applicant prepare information for City
staff review no later than June 19, 1989. lois will provide staff with
time necessary to review site plan and meet public hearing deadlines for
the July meeting of the Planning Oommission.
D. 6UPPOMNG DATA:
Copy of existing incomplete site plan; Oopy of correspondence with Kevin
Pair which outlines City requests for site plan information.
Phone (612) 29e-2711 March 23, 1969
Mabe(612) 333-V%I
C,ifcy o/ Monticello
MONTICELLO. MN 55362.9245
y
leo east e300 ae0
.IpI1tlCa00. MWrrwo O
aaaez•oz.e
Mr. Kevin Pair
toGrImsm
Pair's Garden Center
2�„, aka.
201 Fast Broadway
Fret Fair
P.O. Box 746
vvuuam Fah
Monticello, MN 55362
Warren Smith
Dear Mr. Pair:
Ric. aw �„
It has come to our attention that you have purchased Lots 6, 7, 8,
.srsmm Adrnirinruot
and 9, Block B, for the purpose of providing additional sales and/or
,anning a Zonlrg
storage area associated with the operation of Fair's Garden Center.
.Ian o'Neln
It is my duty to inform you that utilization of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9
Aft Worlm:
as an "accessory” use as described requires that you obtain a
Jam 154 T01e
conditional use permit as outlined in 14-4: )A) and )B) of the
Ading 011160
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Gary Anoerum
0-0--t
The City requests that you conplete the attached application for a
conditional use permit and supply the following information as part
of your application. Staff will be reviewing the information to
determine to what degree the use of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 as
storage/sales area is consistent with the requirements of tho Zoning
Ordinance. After reviewing the information with you, a plan for
future action will be established designed to address any potential
areas of non-co:pliance. It is planned that your conditional use
permit application will be addressed at the planning Ccamisaion
Heetiug of May 2, 1969.
Following is information that the City would like you to submit to
the City by Monday, April 18, 1989.
1. Completed application form.
2. Site plan to include plan for entire area encompasoing
Loto 1-9. Site plan to include location and dimensions of
the following items:
a. All structures, including main business structure,
garages, residences, etc.
b. Storage structures, including storage bine.
c. Outside sales area.
y
leo east e300 ae0
.IpI1tlCa00. MWrrwo O
aaaez•oz.e
Mr. Kevin Pair
March 23, 1989
Page 2
d. outside storage area, types of materials stored.
e. Proposed or existing screening fence or landscaping.
f. Parking area. Please outline parking spaces.
Sincerely,
Assistant Administrator
JOAd
cc: Ren Maus
Fran Pair
Tae Hayes
Pile
C
R01
May 26, 1989
MONTICELLO
250 East Broadway
Monticello, NN 55361.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
u.,..
A.m-thMj-
Mr. Kevin Fair
C., G—.1
Pair's Garden Center
Dun Ddmiccu
FT,II Fur
201 Fast Broadway
Sh,do A.,L-,.m
P.O. Box 746
tx;,— S..rh
Monticello, MN 55362
um^
R.luldl�u0.•,
Dear Kevin:
Thank you for providing the site plan for the expanded Fair's
Garden Center. Unfortunately, the information contained on
"'
1.A�.SCJ
the plan is not sufficient, as the necessary locations and
dimensions of the various structures are absent from the site
oa,. AiJcn,�n
plan. As I informed you earlier, this information is
P Y ,
necessary in order for City staff to determine precisely what
t.—'.n„�•n�*�
on,.�^,�.k,�
variances might be needed prior to consideration of the
conditional use permit.
As previously requested, please update the site plan you
submitted to me by including the approximate location and
dimensions of a) all structures, including main business
structure, garages, residences, utc.1 b) storage structures,
including storage binsr c) outside sales areal d) outside
storage area, types of materials storedm e) proposed or
existing screening, fence, or lendscapingm f) parking area.
Please submit the revised plan to me by 9:00 a.m., Tuesday,
May 30. Staff will review the plan and contact you with our
remarks accordingly.
As one final note, if there are any variances that would be
required with this site plan, they will be imposoible to
obtain along with the conditional use permit, as the public
hearing notice deadline for variances passed prior to staff
getting information necessary to define any needed variances.
250 Fast Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
MrKevin Pair
Pair's Carden Center
201 East Broadway
P.O. Box 746
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Pair:
may 10, 1989
As you recall, the Planning Commission tabled further discussion of your
application for a conditional use permit until the regularly ocheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on June 6, 1989. It is vital that you
submit the necessary site plan information well ahead of the Planning
Commission meeting date so as to provide City staff with sufficient time to
review the site plan and make appropriate recommendations to the Planning
Commission regarding potential conditions that might be attached to the
conditional use permit. The additional time will also provide us with the
opportunity to discuss the potential conditions and staff recommendations
with you prior to presentation to the Planning Commission.
It is my understanding that the Planning Commission desires a thorough act of
information regarding your business operation prior to a decision on this
matter. Please submit the data outlined in my letter of March 23, 1989, no
later than May 22, 1989. Staff will then have the week of May 22 through
May 26 to review your site plan and prepare potential recommendations for the
Planning Commission, iie can use the week of May 29 through June 2 to share
our recommendation with you and discuss potential problems that might
arise.
Thank you for responding promptly to this request for information. Staff
looks forward to working with you throughout the conditional use permitting
process. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MMrr1CMLO
Gaey Anderson >
Zoning Administrator
Gli/kd
Enclosure / • 1
act file ✓
Hr. Kevin Fair
May 24, 1989
Page 2
Consequently, at the nest meeting, it will be impossible for the
Planning Commission to recommend granting a conditional use permit if
a variance is also needed.
If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact me.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MMMICELI
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JOAd
cc: File
Received site plan and letter on May_ 24. 1989. at Fair's Garden Center.
Signature `