Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-06-1991AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PUMING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 6, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, and
Richard Carlson
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 9,
1991.
7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
retail/commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12,
Section 2, B-2 (limited business district) of this
ordinance in a PZM (performance zone mined). Applicant,
21st Century Builders.
7:29 pm 4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of
an attached garage within the front yard and aide yard
setback requirements. Applicant, Raymond and Karla Dickey.
Additional Information Items
7:49 pm 1. A variance request to allow the driveways of a zero lot
line duplex to be constructed up to the side yard property
line. Applicant, Don and Joan Doran. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before them.
7:41 pm 2. A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be placed
within the sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wright
County State Bank. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
7:53 pm 3. A preliminary plat request entitled phase I of Cardinal
Hills residential subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus
Homes. Council actions Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
7:55 pm 4. A request to rezone 10 acres of unplatted land from AO
(agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential).
Applicant, Value Plus Homes. Council actions Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
7:57 pm S. A request to amend Section 3-2, General Building and
Performance Requirements, by adding the following provision
to the list of the dwelling unit restrictiones 5. In the
R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-
family) district, all Bingle and two-family dwelling unite
constructed after July 22, 1991, must Include development
of an attached or detached garage. Minimum site
requirement for garage f loos is 440 eq ft. Applicant, City
of Monticello. Council actions Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 6, 1991
Page 2
7:59 pm 6. A request to rezone 120 acres of land from AO
(agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential), which
would allow development of an elementary school facility as
a conditional use. Applicant, Monticello School District
0882. Council actions Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:01 pm 7. Review Chelsea area concept plans and determine if further
changes need to be made prior to development of detailed
plans. Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
Ss03 pm S. Consideration of establishing a recommendation to Council
regarding outside storage of construction equipment.
Applicant, Floyd Kruse. Council actions Mr. Kruse agreed
to clean up the property within 30 days.
8:05 pm 9. Review a proposal to establish a mobile treatment unit.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
6:07 pm 10. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of establishment of
regulations governing adult land uses. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council action: No action required, as the
request did not come before them.
8:09 pm 11. Consideration of approving a resolution finding the HRA's
TIF plan associated with pre -planning for the Shingobee,
Inc., Industrial development to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan of the City. Council actions Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendatior3.
8311 pm 12. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 3, 1991,
7300 p.m.
8s13 pm 13. Adjournment.
NINtMS
r REGULAR MEETING - B DMTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 9, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart,
Cindy I.emm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
7:01 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 4,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent.
Jon Bogart arrived at 7:04 p.m. for the meeting.
3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow the driveways of
a zero lot line duDlex to be constructed uD to the side yard
Droverty line. Applicant. Don and Joan Doran.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Aeeistant Administrator, reviewed Mr. Doran's request
to have both driveways of a zero lot line duplex constructed
up to the side yard property line. 0'He ill reviewed other
instances where the City of Monticello has allowed zero lot
line duplexes to have the driveways constructed next to each
other. These instances include Mel Wolters' duplexes on
Marvin Elwood Road, which were constructed prior to the Zoning
Administrator coming to work for the City of Monticello, and
the townhouses in Par West and Colony by the Greens 2nd, 3rd,
and 4th Additions.
O'Neill explained that allowing this type of driveway
construction le a policy decision. Mr. Doran's request will
be handled by Planning Commission and City Council approval,
and any future requests would be addressed through an
ordinance amendment.
Mr. Doran stated that he had explained his variance request to
neighbors, and none of the property owners that had contacted
him had any problem with his proposed variance request.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for input from the Planning Commission members.
Page 1
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
Commission members felt that unique circumstances were created
with this variance request and previous zero lot line duplexes
and townhouses that were constructed allowing the driveways to
abut the side property line. They felt that any future
requests of this type should be handled through an ordinance
amendment.
Notion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Cindy Lemm
to approve the variance request allowing a zero lot line
duplex to be constructed with a zero lot line driveway.
Reason for approval: The 3 -foot setback requirement was not
meant to apply to zero lot line townhouses; therefore, this
case is unique and will not set a precedent that could be
applied elsewhere. Planning Commission also directed City
staff to amend the ordinance exempting zero lot line townhomes
or duplexes from the driveway setback provision. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be
placed within the sign setback requirement. Aoolicant, Wriaht
Countv State Bank.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed Wright County State
Bank's request to place a pylon sign within the 15 -foot pylon
sign setback requirement. The potential hardship that would
be created by placing the sign at the required 15 -foot setback
is the reduction in the visibility of the sign when traveling
southbound on Highway 25. The proposed placement of the sign
will not encroach into the public right-of-way, and the sign
will not obstruct other signs in the area, as there are no
other signs on the block from East Broadway to East River
Street.
With no input from the Wright County State Bank
representatives other than a willingness to answer questions,
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing.
with no further discussion amongst Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Richard Carlson to allow a pylon sign to be placed within the
sign setback requirement. Notion is based on the finding that
a hardship exists in that the sign is not easily visible from
southbound Highway 25 if it is set back the full 15 feet due
to the curve of the road and the location of the bank;
placement of the sign at the proposed location will not impact
the ability to see other signs from the street; the sign will
not hang over the street right-of-way. Motion carried
unanimously.
Page 2
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
5. Public Hearinq--A preliminary plat request entitled phase I of
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Acolicant. Value Plus
Homes.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the proposed
preliminary plat of phase I of the Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision. Phase I includes development of 24 lots on 10
acres of land located directly south of the proposed
elementary school site and adjacent to Fallon Avenue. Phase I
represents 10• of the total area to be developed by Value Plus
Homes. As part of phase I, cash will be received as part of
park dedication requirement.
Mr. John Leerson questioned any possible assessment that would
be on his property located south from there, and he asked if
all the drainage questions were addressed.
Mr. Dave Nelson addressed how future phases would affect the
drainage onto his property, as he farms the adjoining property
to the south.
Mr. Steve Holker addressed both Mr. Leerson and Mr. Nelson's
questions. Holker stated that the storm water, except for
that which is shared at the Value Plus south property line and
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Leerson's north property line, would be
managed on the Cardinal Hills sites. No storm water would be
dumped on adjoining lands. O'Neill addressed Mr. Leerson's
concerns as to any future assessments from this proposed
project by stating that there would be no forthcoming
assessments to his property, only at such time in the future
if services were requested and/or extended farther south past
his property.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then closed the public hearing.
Questions raised by the Planning Commission members dealt with
Mr. Bogart's concern of the double frontage lots and where is
the ponded water in the phase I outlet.
Mr. Richard Carlson questioned if any turn-arounds will be
required. The park development and naming of the streets
should be turned over to the new Parke Commission.
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Nartie
to approve phase I of the preliminary plat of the Cardinal
Hills residential subdivision. Motion is based on the finding
that the preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive
V Page 3
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
plan and meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and
utility design standards. Added as conditions were: 1) the
developer's were put on notice that they should take care of
the double -fronted lots as part of any future phases of this
subdivision by either providing for added lot depth or by
limiting parallel roads along School Boulevard; 2) the pond
outlet question should be handled through the consulting
engineer; and 3) the school property and associated park
facilities may not be used to meet Cardinal Hills park
dedication requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearing --A request to rezone 10 acres of unplatted land
from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential).
Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
QaC
9. Public Hearing --A request to rezone 120 acres of land from AD
(Nriculturall to R-1 (single familv reeidentiall to allow
elopment o{ an elementary school facility as a conditional
use. Applicant, Monticelfo School District 0882.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the Value Plus
Homes and School District requests to rezone 10 acres of AD
land for the Value Plus single family residential home site
and 120 acres of the School District property for future
school complexes to be rezoned to an R-1 (single family
residential) zone.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve the proposed rezoning of the north 1/2 of
the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13,
Township 121, Range 25, in the city of btonticello from AD
(agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential). Notion is
based on the finding that the proposed zoning district is
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City, it is
consistent with the geographic area, and there is a need for
establishment of an R-1 zone In this area. As noted in the
proposed finding above, the use of this property for
residential purposes in completely consistent with the
comprehensive plan of the City. Residential development of
this location will serve to complement the proposed School
District development to the north. Notion carried
unanimously.
Page 4
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Jon Bogart to
approve the rezoning of 120 acres of land from AO
(agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential), which would
allow development of an elementary school facility as a
conditional use. Motion is based on the following findings:
1) The rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan
prepared by the City and is consistent with the
recommendations of the consulting planner; 2) The rezoning is
consistent with the character and geography of the area;
3) The need for the rezoning has been demonstrated, as it will
enable development of a needed school facility at this
location. Notion carried unanimously.
7. Public Hearin --A request to amend Section 3-2: General
Buildinq and Performance Requirements♦ by addinq the followinq
provision to the list of dwelling unit restrictions: 5. In
the R-1 (single family residentiall and R-2 (single and two
family residential) districts, all sinale and two-family
dwellina units constructed after July 22, 1991, must include
development of an attached or detached qaraqe. Minimum size
of the caraae floor is 440 so ft.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment to increase the size of the minimum garage
requirement from 14 feet by 24 feet, or 336 sq ft, to possibly
20 -foot by 20 -foot, or 400 sq ft. If the City amends their
ordinance to require the additional square footage in the
garage, the Farmers Home Administration will also look at
amending their requirements for the City of Monticello to
increase the garage square footage from 336 eq ft to
400 sq ft.
Mr. Ted Holker explained that the Farmers Home Administration
garage requirements would then be the same as the City of
Monticello's garage square foot requirements, with the
suggestion of a 16 -toot minimum door width.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to
approve the ordinance amendment requiring that all single
family dwellings be constructed to include a garage with a
minimum area of 400 sq ft and a minimum door width of 16 feet.
Planning Commission makes the finding that the minimum
requirement of the garage area of 400 aq ft is reasonable and
proper given the preponderance of two -car families, and the
added storage area provides space necessary to store household
Page S
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
articles inside rather than outside, thereby improving the
appearance of the neighborhoods and contributing toward
maintaining property values. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Public Hearing --A conditional use request which would allow
public school use in an R-1 (single familX residential zoninq
di strict. Applicant, Monticello School District #882.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the School
District's conditional use request to allow a public school in
an R-1 (single family residential) zone. O'Neill reviewed
some concerns that had been raised by the City staff: 1) The
location of the power line poles in relationship to the new
street, which would run east and west on the south side of
their property, called School Boulevard; 2) The school will
provide a storm retention pond on site; and 3) The school will
provide sidewalks on their property.
Mr. Sheldon Johnson, Monticello School District
Superintendent, explained that all power line poles would be
placed on the School District's property, the School District
will provide a storm retention pond for any water drainage on
their site, and the School will be looking at establishing
sidewalks on their new school site to complete the site
development.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie
to approve the conditional use request which would allow
school use in an R-1 (single family residential) zone subject
to the following conditions:
1. The site plan should be amended to show a sidewalk
along the driveway providing access to School
Boulevard.
2. The School District agrees to install a sidewalk
along the driveway providing access to Fallon
Avenue at such time that residential development
adjoining the site warrants development of the
sidewalk.
3. The drive leading to the service dock and loading
area should be modified to include space for a
turn -around near the dock area.
Pago 6
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
4. A landscaping plan needs to be prepared which shows
placement of coniferous trees at 7 -foot intervals
or two rows with 15 -foot spacings along the
northern boundary of the property.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, all grading
plans must be approved by the City Engineer.
Planning Commission makes the finding that development of a
school facility as proposed is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and compatible with the character of future
and existing neighborhoods. This alternative is supportive,
as it is well established that the school use of this location
is proper and presents a positive development factor in this
area. Notion carried unanimously.
10. Review Chelsea area concept plan and determine if further
chances need to be made prior to development of detailed
Plans.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the Chelsea area
concept plans to determine if further changes need to be made
prior to development of the detailed plans. O'Neill explained
that the concept plans for review this evening are basically
the same as were seen previously at the workshop at the
Monticello Nuclear Plant Training facility.
Dan McConnon closed the public hearing.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, it was the consensus of the members to send the plans
as submitted to the consulting planner for further
development.
17. Review a proposal to establish a mobile treatment unit.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed a proposal
submitted by Orthopedics Sports Center requesting permission
to operate a mobile physical therapy unit in Monticello. The
Planning Commission members are asked to review and discuss
the pro's and con's of a proposed ordinance amendment allowing
operation of a mobile care unit.
Mr. Dennis Lundquist, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital physical
therapist, voiced his concerns on behalf of his firm which
contracts services with the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital
District. Ho roquoatod that the Planning Commission not
support this type of a physical therapy mobile treatment unit
J
Page 7
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
in the city of Monticello. His concerns addressed the
frequency of the unit in Monticello and if it would be
available when needed.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission members was not
to recommend a proposed ordinance amendment to allow this type
of mobile physical therapy unit to operate within the city
limits of Monticello.
Planning Commission discussed the matter and took no action.
11. Consideration of establishing a recommendation to the Council
regarding outside storage of construction eguioment.
Applicant, Floyd Kruse.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that the
Planning Commission members make a formal recommendation to
the City Council regarding outside storage of construction
equipment on the Floyd Kruse/former Dino's Other World
property. O'Neill presented a video that was taken that
afternoon of the existing site.
There being no input from the public and no further input from
the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon
Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to recommend to the
Council that the construction equipment be cleaned up within
30 days of the July 22 City Council meeting date. Reason for
recommendations The existing zoning designation at the site
is appropriate, and the rules governing outside storage of
equipment should be upheld. There Is no demonstrated need to
change the ordinance; therefore, it should be enforced.
13. Continued Public Hearina--Consideration of establishment of
requlatione aovernino adult land uses . Applicant. City of
Monticello.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission Chairperson was
to continue the public hearing on this item.
1/. Consideration of approvinq a resolution finding the HRA' a TIP
clan associated with pre-olannina for the Shingobee Inc.;
industrial development to be consistent with tfie comorAsnsive
plan of the Citv.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the 8hingobee,
Inc., project plans and associated land use for consistency
with the City's comprehensive plan. City staff has reviewed
the site plan and land use and found it to be completely
Page 6
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
consistent with the existing zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan; therefore, City staff recommends approval
of the attached resolution.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Jon
Bogart to approve the resolution stating that the Shingobee,
Inc., project plan is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan. Motion is based on the finding that the project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City and the
property is properly zoned and well suited for the proposed
use; therefore, it appears reasonable to support this
alternative. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1991-2.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request of Outlot I, Meadow
Oak subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate.
Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Council actions
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
2. Public Hearing --A rezoning request to rezone Outlot I, Meadow
Oak subdivision, from R -PUD (residential planned unit
development) to R-1 (single family residential) zoning.
Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
3. Continued Public Hearing on establishment of regulations
governing adult land uses. Council action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
4. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance
amendment which would allow the City to withdraw a conditional
use permit due to violations of permit conditions. Applicant,
City of Monticello. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
9. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the HRA's
modified redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1,
modified TIP plan for TIF District Noe. 1-1 through 1-11, and
TIF plan for TIP District No. 1-12, all located within the
Redevelopment Project No. 1, to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the City. Council action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
6. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set
the next tentative meeting date for Tuesday, August 6, 1991.
Page 9
Le,
t_
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/9/91
7. A discussion was held on double frontage lots. A motion was
made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Dlartie to have the
City staff investigate how other communities address double
frontage lots as part of residential subdivision plate .
Motion carried unanimously.
S. A motion was made by Richard Kartie and seconded by Cindy T emm
to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:70 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 10
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
3. Public Hearing --A conditional use revuest to allow retail/
commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, B-2
(limited business district) of this ordinance in a PSN
leerformance zone mixed). ADDlicant. 21st Century Builders.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Over one year ago, JKNV Properties submitted a request for a
conditional use permit which would allow development of a
strip mall on a 4 -acre site directly east of the Haus Foods
store. Planning Commission and Council reviewed the request
and granted approval of the conditional use permit with a
number of conditions. Since one year has lapsed since the
original approval, the developer must apply for a new
conditional use permit in order to proceed on the project. In
addition, the applicant has made some changes to the plan
approved previously which merit additional review.
The new site plan shows a slightly larger building,
as it increases from 23,530 sq ft to 26,287 sq ft.
In addition, the structure is placed in a position
slightly west and north of the position noted on
the original plan.
The new site plan design anticipates future
connection of the strip mall to the Maus Foods
store. This development concept was followed
despite the fact that Council denied an earlier
request to allow the strip mall to be connected to
Maus Foods.
2. Along with the increase in building size is an
increase in the number of parking stalls created.
The original plan called for 124 parking spaces.
The new plan reveals 131 parking spaces. It would
appear that the increase in parking spaces is
sufficient to provide additional parking associated
with the added retail space.
It is important to note that although the total
parking spaces available have increased (7), the
number of available parking spaces in the front of
the site has decreased (-7). Under the new plan,
14 additional stalls would be located in the back
of the structure where employees would typically
park, and the resulting total of 37 stalls may be
more parking spaces in the rear than what is needed
by employees working in 10 stores. The concern is
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
that the additional spaces in the rear should
actually be located in the front to adequately
handle customer demand.
Following is a table which outlines the changes in
parking in terms of numbers of stalls provided and
location.
Total Front Rear
Original plan 124 101 23
Revised plan 131 94 37
Difference + 7 - 7 +14
The original plan called for a driveway access off
of Cedar Street at a location between 6th Street
and the railroad tracks. This access point has
been removed; however, a pedestrian walkway still
remains at this location. This appears to be an
improvement to the site plan, as it reduces access
points on Cedar Street and probably enhances the
safety of the pedestrian crossing by reducing
turning motions at the pedestrian crossing.
4. The structure is pushed to the north on the alto,
which has provided additional land area on the
south side of the site to be used to manage the
steep change in elevation between the southern
boundary of the site and the building itself.
Under the now plan, the retaining wall would be
eliminated and replaced with a steep landscaped
slope. It is not known at this time if this design
will be acceptable. The developer is aware that
the concept needs to be reviewed closely by our
City Engineer prior to approval. This plan does
provide an option for the future extension of 6th
Street through the southern boundary of this site
as was originally proposed. If you recall, at one
time the thought was to extend 6th Street along the
southern boundary of the site to link up with Palm
Street. Again, the City Council reviewed this
original doaign and decided against supporting it.
The developers are aware that approval of the
current plan does not mean that future roadway
realignments will be supported.
In addition, the driveway design shows a narrow,
12 -foot drive along the southern perimeter of the
structure. It is staff's view that this drive area
needs to be a minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for
two-way traffic. In addition, a sidewalk should be
Installed betwoon this drive and the building wall.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to approve the conditional use permit subject to
the following conditions (these are the same conditions
as noted by Council on May 14, 1990, except for item 4
which is proposed by staff):
1. Development of final landscaping and berming plan
creating effective transition between commercial
and residential properties as determined by the
City Planner. A bond in the amount of 1008 of the
cost to install berming and landscaping shall be
provided to the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
T. Development of a steep grade or combination of
steep grade and retaining walls shall be
accompanied by installation of a safety fence for
the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of
the steep grade. The fence shall be made of a
weather -resistant material and be at least 6 feet
high.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage
and retaining wall construction plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
4. Other amendments to the plan as required by
Planning Commission designed to satisfy parking and
traffic circulation requirements. This could
include widening of all two-way drive areas to
24 feet.
The other three conditions as noted in the Council
minutes of May 14, 1990, have already been met by the
applicant. These conditions included 1) moving the
southerly most access drive onto Cedar Street in
alignment with 6th Street; 1) the northerly most access
onto Cedar Street was allowed through the variance
process; however, access at this location was limited to
entrance only; and 3) the developer did remove debris
placed on the 5th Street right-of-way along the northern
boundary of the property. The removal process was
reviewed by the City Inspector.
Under this alternative, the project would move ahead and
be placed on the Council agenda. It should be noted that
this site plan was delivered late in the week and has not
been reviewed by the public works department. I would
t
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
like to get their input on the site plan, as it may be
useful in determining if there should be additional
conditions attached to the conditional use permit.
T. Notion to deny approval of the conditional use permit
allowing retail/commercial activity in a PSN zone.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could
make the finding that the proposed retail/commercial
activity is not consistent with the nature or geography
of the area. This alternative may not be reasonable in
that the site plan and associated landscaping is designed
to buffer the impacts on the adjoining residential areas,
and the site is adjacent to a busy commercial area;
therefore, this alternative may not be reasonable.
C. STAFF RECONNENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with
the conditions as attached. The site plan is very similar to
the previous plan approved in May of 1990. Changes made to
the old plan do not appear to be substantive enough to justify
denial; however, a final recommendation on all conditions and
possible changes to the site plan is not available at thiB
time, as the Building Inspector and Public Works Director have
not had the opportunity to review the revised site plan. I
will provide their comments to you at the meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of supporting data provided to the City Council on
Nay 14, 1990; Copy of associated meeting minutes; Copy of old
and revised alto plans.
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow
retail commercial activity in a PZM zone. Applicant. JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
JKMV Partnership, along with 21st Century Builders, requests
that the Planning Commission and City Council consider
allowing retail activity to occur in a PZM zone as a
conditional use. The Planning Commission has scheduled a
special meeting and will be conducting a public hearing
regarding this matter at 5:30 p.m., May 14, 1990. City
Council will be reviewing this item immediately following the
special meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff will be
reporting on the Planning Commission's recommendation as part
of the presentation of this item to Council.
As you recall, Council previously denied consideration of a
development plan for the area which included closing of Cedar
Street and relocation of utilities. As a result of this
decision and based upon additional input from City staff, a
new site plan has been prepared for City review. The
following is a brief review of the purpose of the PZM zone
along with a review of the site plan.
PZM Zone Purpose (taken from comments made by City Planner)
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.
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.
O
Ob
Council Agenda - 5/14/90 16A
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.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The characteristics of the new site plan for the most part are
consistent with the suggestions made by the City Planner.
Included in the new plan are greater setback distances between
adjoining properties, additional landscaping, and a reduction
in the size of the structure. In addition, the structure has
to be turned 90 degrees so that it will now face Highway 25.
This was also a suggestion made by the City Planner.
Setbacks
The proposed plan meets all building setback minimums for the
B-3 zone. No formal setback requirements are in place for the
PZM district.
As you can see on the attached site plan, the project calls
for a 10 -foot setback parking/drive area and adjoining
residential areas. Trees and other landscaping plantings will
be placed in the 10—foot setback areas along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the properties. The final landscaping
plan is not available at this time.
La ndscapinq
The landscape plan shows approximately 40 trees, which meets
the minuimum level of tree plantings had this development been
located in a B-3 zone. Since the development is located in
a PEM zone, the City at its discretion may require additional
landscaping for the purpose of creating a buffer between
commercial and residential uses. It is suggested that the
City Planner provide some input into the design of the
landscape plan and assist the City in determining to what
extent additional plantings are necessary to create the proper
separation between commercial and residential land uses. The
City/Planning Commieelon could approve the conditional use
permit subject to such a review.
O
CIO,
ee��
Council Agenda - 5/14/90 ®s�;9-
Access Drives
The site plan submitted calls for development of an access
drive that is 5 feet from the 5th Street right-of-way/BN
tracks. According to City ordinance, driveways must be
located at least 40 feet from a City right-of-way; therefore,
this portion of the site plan does not comply with City
ordinance. It is suggested in one of the proposed conditions
associated with this conditional use permit that the developer
simply move the entrance 40 feet from the property line, or
the entrance could be eliminated altogether. It should be
noted that an entrance to Cedar Street at such a close
proximity to the railroad tracks might be creating a traffic
hazard. For instance, vehicles turning north onto Cedar
Street from the access might have some difficulty seeing train
traffic coming from the east. To what extent this potential
traffic hazard is a bona fide problem is difficult to say
given the infrequency of train traffic.
In addition, truck traffic servicing Maus Foods currently
utilizes Cedar Street for maneuvering space during the process
entering and exiting Maus Foods' loading berths. Using City
right-of-way for maneuvering space should be discouraged, as
a traffic hazard is created when trucks are backing and
turning on City right-of-way. The presence of the drive area
across the street might encourage the use of the drive for
additional maneuvering space, which might result in a
worsening of the existing poor traffic situation.
The site plan also calls for development of an access drive on
the south side of the parking lot which is off -set from the
6th Street right-of-way. The site plan should be improved by
realigning this drive to match 6th Street. Alignment with 6th
Street would allow vehicles entering the development from 6th
Street to simply cross Cedar rather than cross diagonally in
an unsafe manner. Moving the drive as proposed would also
require that the parking displaced by the drive be moved to
the south of the access drive.
Parkinq Spaces
The plan shows 124 stalls, which is consistent with ordinance
requirements.
Demolition Debris on 5th Street Right-of-way
It is my understanding that demolition debris, including tree
stumps, possibly construction material, and other unknown
materials, was buried in an area along the northern property
a
�®
Council Agenda - 5/14/90
line and within the 5th Street right-of-way. This material
was buried without authorization after verbal notification to
the contractor (Veit Construction of Rogers, MN) by City staff
that this was not permitted. Consequently, at some time in
the future, this may need to be removed. This material will
decompose and could affect the stability of the railroad or if
5th Street is ever developed; or if a utility line such as
storm sewer is installed at the dump location, the debris may
cause settlement and would need to be excavated and replaced
with good fill material. At the present time, however, the
presence of the debris is not creating a noticeable problem.
It is suggested that one of the conditions require that the
property owner remove the debris material in the event it
becomes necessary to do so. This responsibility could be
formally recorded against the property. The City Council
could also require removal of the material with the
development to assure no future problems.
Su mnanr
It appears clear that the site plan, with some modifications
as noted above, is consistent with the goal and intent of the
PZM zone. Following under alternative it is a list of
conditions that Council may wish to attach to the conditional
use permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS3
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit request subject
to the following conditions:
1. Development of final landscaping and berming plan
creating effective transition between commercial
and residential properties as determined by the
City Planner. A bond in the amount of 100% of the
cost to install berming and landscaping shall be
provided to the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. Development of a retaining wall shall be
accompanied by installation of a safety fence for
the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of
the retaining wall. Fence shall be made of
weather resistant material and be at least 6 toot
high.
J. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage
and retaining wall construction plane shall be
approved City engineer.
I
0®
Council Agenda - 5/14/90 40�
4. Southerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
aligned with 6th Street.
5. Northerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
moved 40 feet to the south or eliminated.
6. A document identifying the approximate location of
demolition or unknown material on the 5th Street
right-of-way and designating the property owner as
the party responsible for removal of the debris and
restoration shall be recorded against the property.
This would require someone in the future to be
responsible when and if problems develop.
2. Notion to deny approval of the conditional use permit
request.
If the applicants are not willing or able to satisfy the
conditions noted, then the Planning Commission/Council
may elect to deny the conditional use permit process.
Condition number 5 is the only condition that would need
a variance prior to final approval. If Planning
Commission elects to eliminate condition number 5 as one
of the conditions, then the applicants would need to
obtain a variance. This process would require an
additional public hearing process.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
request subject to conditions noted in alternative it and any
other conditions that Planning Commission/Council might add.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site plan.
0
Council Minutes - 5/14/90
0046`
6. Consideration of conditional use _permit which would allow
retail/commercial activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKKV
Partnership/21st Century Builders.
Mayor Maus relinquished the chair to Acting Mayor, Fran Fair.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the site plan and
outlined the suggested conditions associated with this permit.
He also noted that the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
applicant obtaining a variance which would allow the northerly
most access onto Cedar Street to be located within 40 feet of
the Sth Street right -of -ray.
O'Neill also went on to note that during the excavation and
grading of the site placing it in the condition it is today,
material was deposited underground in an area along the
northern boundary of the property. O'Neill informed Council
that it is likely that some of this debris is located on the
City 5th Street right-of-way.
I
Dan Blonigen suggested that a condition be added to the permit
which would require that the developer remove all debris
material dumped on City right-of-way prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Fran Fair also noted that the debris material should be
removed from the Sth Street right-of-way as a condition of the
conditional use permit.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Bloniqen, to approve the conditional use
permit subject to the following conditionet
1. Development of a final landscaping and berminq plan
creating effective transition between commercial and
residential properties as determined by the City Planner.
A bond in the amount of 100% of the cost to install
berming and landscaping shall be provided to the City
prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Development of a retaining wall shall be accompanied by
installation of a safety fence for the purpose of
eliminating access to the edge of the retaining wall.
The fence shall be made of weather resistant material and
be at least 6 feet high.
3. Prior to issuance of building permit, drainage and
retaining wall construction plans shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
0
C
Council Minutes - 5/14/90
4. The southerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
aligned with 6th Street.
5. The northerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be
moved 40 feet to the south of 5th Street, eliminated, or
a variance allowing the access to be located at this
point shall be obtained.
6. Applicant shall remove all debris previously placed on
the 5th Street right-of-way along the northern boundary
of the property. Removal process must be reviewed by
City Inspector. Debris must be removed prior to issuance
of a building permit.
Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson,
Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Ken Maus.
I I
.11N mom
1 -
I
iCLDJ �ql
un www ®. V. W r
.�nlrr
Wrr.W t
yW�� Ire• I \
•�. Nb-�r�Mlr�l�YMr�r•r YY I • ' '•� I•
Residential
Vacant
SITI " STMI * I
mb 11 WO
Residential
Vacant
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
4. Public Rearing --A variance request to allow construction of an
attached aaraae within the front yard and side yard setback
requirements. Av)plicant, Raymond and Karla Dickey. (G. A. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Raymond and Karla Dickey are proposing to construct an
attached garage within the aide yard and front yard setback
requirements. As noted on the enclosed site plan, the
applicants are requesting to construct the northwest corner of
the garage up to within 6 feet of the side property line. The
southwest corner of the proposed garage addition would be
approximately 8 feet from the side property line. The
applicant is also requesting to place the front of the
proposed attached garage forward from the front of the
existing house. By placing the front portion of the garage
addition forward, they would be able to create a larger
entryway by adding onto the house. The existing entry is
approximately 3 feet by 6 feet. with the proposed garage
addition, the entrance from the garage to the house would also
come within this 3 -foot by 6 -foot existing front entry.
The additional width required of the proposed attached garage
from a 28 -foot width to a standard 24 -foot width and not need
a side yard variance request is recommended for approval,
whereas the location of the entry on the existing house in
relationship to a 24 -foot garage would leave the entry from
the garage into the house, still accommodate two full-size
automobiles that the Dickey's own, and cramp the room from the
entry from the garage into the front entry of the house.
In recommending a side yard variance approval, the front yard
variance request should be denied, as the applicants fail to
demonstrate any hardship which would prohibit this garage to
be constructed within the front setback requirement. The
additional width of the garage from 24 feet to 28 feet should
accommodate enlargement of an entry to work out in their
situation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION9t
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the side yard setback requirement.
3. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the front yard setback
requirement.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/91
4. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the front yard setback
requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the variance request to
allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard
setback requirement. With the location of the entry within
the existing house with the increased garage width to
accommodate an entry expansion and still have the garage
constructed up to within 6 feet of the side property line.
In terms of the request to bring the garage further ahead to
accommodate the widening of the existing entry in with the
proposed garage addition, City staff recommends denial of the
front yard variance request, as the applicants fall to
demonstrate any hardship that would prohibit this garage to be
constructed within the front building setback requirement. In
addition, there is a consistent record of denying this type of
variance. Approval of this variance request would not be
consistent with the City's recent decision to deny Larry
Gartners- request to place hie garage inside the standard
j setback line.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of the site
plan for the variance request.
i
I
A variance zaquaet to allow bwsUuation
of an aytecheC gataga rithin:the front yard
and o Yana aetbaek rogair ----
AvaLICA*: Raymond and Karl� y
a
f
I
a
06'
tba•9'1'
�a
A�idMlel � i
1