Loading...
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