Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-18-1995 SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL NWATMG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 18, 1998 - 7 p.m -
Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Richard
Martie
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 7, 1996.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the setback
minimums that would allow construction of a double -car garage. Location is
Lot 7, Block 36, Lower Monticello. Applicant, Dennis Anderson.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the side yard setback
requirement for a driveway. Location is Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace.
(Subsequent to filing of application, the applicant withdrew this request.)
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit
cl allowing a garden center in a B-4 zoning district. Location is Block B, Lots
' 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, Original Plat. Applicant. Cedar Street Garden Center.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment
providing for interim uses. Applicant, Jay Morrell.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment
establishing outside storage as an interim use in an 1.2 zone. Applicant,
Jay Morrell.
B. Public Hearing --Consideration of granting an interim use permit to allow
outside storage as an interim use at Lot 2, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial
Park Second Addition. Applicant, Jay Morrell.
(The 3 items listed above were not published by the Monticello Times:
therefore, the public hearings cannot be held at this time on these three
items and must be continued to the next meeting.)
9. Review comprehensive plan progress. �� Mf'1A%
✓ A. General report - Steve Grittman.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
April 18, 1995
Page 2
B. Receive an update on the status of the ordinance amendment
regulating pole buildings in the business campus and business
district (Jeff verbal report).
C. Review Shadow Pines development proposal.
D. Discuss Planning Commission involvement in preparation of an
updated capital improvement plan and consider providing input on
HRA/City Council use of pooled TIF funds (Jeff report).
E. Update: City/School District efforts to coordinate facilities y/a,, l r�
development.
10. Review conditional use permit enforcement issues (Jeff report).
11. Consideration of establishing date for tour of Orrin Tbompson development.
12. Review Monticello Chamber of Commerce proposal to display a permanent
Z_ reader board at the intersection of State Highway 25 and Broadway.
Consideration of calling for a public hearing on ordinance amendments
necessary to accommodate request (Steve Grittman report).
13. Adjournment.
13
MINUTES
REGULAR MEl&T[ NG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 7, 1996
Members Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie,
Richard Carlson
Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer,
Steve Grittman, City Planner
At 7:00 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Chairman Dick Frie.
a. Dido Frie suggested the Commission select a vice chairman in case
the chairman is absent. Everyone agreed.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO NOMINATE DICK MARTIE
FOR VICE CHAIRMAN. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion
passed unanimously.
b. Dick Frie also informed the Commission that he would like the date
of the April meeting changed to April 18th because of a conflict. It
was discussed by the members and agreed that the April meeting
could be changed. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, did state that
it is important to keep to the scheduled meetings, if possible, because
of the information prepared for applicants that states the Planning
Commission meetings are the first Tuesday of each month.
DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE APRIL MEETING
TO THE 18TH OF APRIL. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion
passed unanimously.
C. Dick Frie added the following two items to the agenda:
1. Discuss scheduling quarterly meetings with all commissions.
2. Discuss the misuse of conditional use permits.
d. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, stated that Planning
Commission was invited to attend the Ta: Increment Financing (TIF)
meeting that was scheduled for March 18th. This meeting will be a
workshop for the City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission to
develop a better understanding of TIF.
Page 1
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/07/86
e. Jeff 0' Neill, Assistant Administrator, also informed the Commission
that Orin Thompson is interested in developing in Monticello and
would like to take the Planning Commission on a tour of one of their
developments.
Cpnsideration of ammmdog minutes of the regular meeting held February 7.
1886.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY
7TH MINUTES. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed
unanimously.
Discuss "Off -Site outside storage in I-1 and I-2 zones.
At the previous meeting, the commission tabled action providing specific
direction to Jay Morrell with regard to designing an ordinance amendment
that would allow off-site outside storage in an industrial zone.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the different approaches for
the commission to review.
1. Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage to occur as a
conditional use in an I-2 zone (currently it is allowed only as an
accessory use).
2. Adopt an ordinance amendment that allows outside storage as an
accessory use on a parcel other than the parcel on which the principal
use is occurring.
3. Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage as an interim use.
4. Other alternatives the Commission may decide upon.
6. The Planning Commission may decide that the ordinance is fine the
way it is an rgject the notion of providing any guidance to Morrell to
assist him in designing an amendment to the code. Under this
alternative, Morrell would prepare a zoning ordinance amendment for
review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission would review and make recommendations to
Council for review at the first meeting of the City Council in March.
Enforeoment action would be initiated at such time that the Council
Page 2
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/07/95
acts to deny the ordinance amendment necessary to legally support
Morrell's use of the land.
Enforcement action has been delayed based on the advice of the City
Attorney. It is his view that the City should first determine whether or not
to change the ordinance to allow the use before tatting legal action. He has
noted that the culmination of the legal action will occur atter the decision
on the zoning ordinance amendment is made; therefore, it would be
premature to take legal steps at this time.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that it is possible to change the
ordinance in just one district The Commission could allow interim use in
the industrial areas only. The city ordinance does not handle this as
parking because trailers are storage - they cannot be driven away.
Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport, stated he did not know if storage of
trailers would be storage or parking. Morrell thought a conditional use
permit with stipulations such as screening, would be acceptable. The
problem with an interim permit would be the time limit The time the
storage will be needed is not known because the economy will dictate the
expansion of the business.
The commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using
conditional use permits verses interim permits. The interim permits could
work well because a time limit could be used to end the use. This type of
permit has been legal for four years and are typically used for non-
conforming uses. There was some concern that the permit would be hard to
revoke. With the conditional use permits, conditions can be attached but
these conditions would need to be enforced by the city. If violated the
ordinance states that violations of conditional use permits are treated as
misdemeanors and would need to be handled by the sheriffs office.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO ASSIST
JAY MORRELL IN PREPARING HIS APPLICATION FOR AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW OFF SITE STORAGE IN AN I-2
ZONE. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Update on Council action on ordinance nm4atine steel and pole buildinsm
jn oomglgrcial and busineF; c=aua zones.
JefO'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the Planning
Commission is asked not to take any formal action on this matter pending
Page 3
d
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/07/85
additional input from business owners that attended the previous Council
meeting on February 27. The following is provided as an update in
anticipation of the item being placed on the agenda for formal consideration
at the regular Planning Commission meeting in April.
At the Council meeting on February 27, 1885, the City Council reviewed the
Planning Commission recommendation which celled for prohibiting pole and
steel buildings in commercial districts and prohibiting pole buildings in
business campus district. Council acted to refer the matter back to the
Planning Commission for farther review.
At the meeting, a number of business owners were in attendance voicing
concerns related to the costs associated with contraction and associated
higher taxation resulting from conventional construction.
The city will be putting together different alternatives for another public
hearing. The business owners that attended the council meeting will be
notified of the next public hearing.
No action was taken on pole buildings at this meeting.
At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment that would regulated placement of accessory
structures in rear yards. In response to the draft ordinance, the Planning
Commission indicated that this measure would not likely solve the problem.
It was suggested that perhaps additional landscaping or berming could be
employed to create a visible separation between the boulevard and the back-
yard
ackyard areas. Under this alternative, the developer of the private lots would
be required to build a low berm and plant at least two trees along the rear
yard lot line on each private lot. This planting would be in addition to the
two trees that are already required by ordinance in the front yard area.
The City could match the tree planting done by the developer by planting at
least two trees along the boulevard as part of the construction project. The
cost of the trees could be incorporated into the public improvements costa
which are paid by the developer as well. For existing boulevards, the City
could establish plants along such boulevards as a priority area for tree
planting.
Page d
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/07/95
The Planning Commission discussed the options and had questions on how
the double fronting lots had become a problem. The Commission could not
remember double Emnting lots as a problem in the past because cul-de-sacs
were built instead.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO REVIEW THE SUBDIVISION
DESIGN STANDARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH UPDATING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REVIEW SHOULD EXAMINE THE
POTENTIAL OF ENCOURAGING CUL-DE-SAC DESIGN OVER DOUBLE
FRONTING LOT DESIGN. THE MOTION ALSO INCLUDED THE
RECOMMENDATION TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING ON DOUBLE FRONTING
LOTS AND COLLECTOR ROADS BE ADDED TO THE SUBDIVISION
REQUIREMENTS. SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed
unanimously.
Jeff' O'Neill reported that no action is requested at this time. The following
is a brief update on an item that the Planning Commission may be formally
addressing at an upcoming meeting. The problem is according to
preliminary review of the ordinance, it is not possible to develop a parking
lot at a location apart from the business that it serves. To do so would be to
allow parking lot as a principal use of a parcel. The ordinance is designed
to assure practical use of the parking lot by the business that is expanding,
and it assures the City that the two uses (business and parking) remain
connected. In other works, if the parking lot and business are located on
the same parcel, it is not possible to sell off the parking area once the
building has been constructed.
An exception to this rule is the case of a joint parking arrangement between
two businesses that operate at differentlopposing hours. An example of this
situation is the arrangement between the Muller Theater and Marquette
Bank. In this situation, the Muller Theater parking is provided by joint
agreement by the bank. This situation was allowed as a conditional use
permit process.
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW OFF
SITE PARKING IN THE B-3 AND B-4 ZONES. SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously.
Page 5
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/07/95
7. Egport from commissioners on recent training.
Rod Dragsten and Dick Frie attended the annual planning institutes
seminar on the basics of planning and zoning. Both commissioners thought
it was worth the time and would use the information that was presented.
8. f,pmvrehensive Plan update.
Steve Grittman gave an update on the interviews that were done for the
comprehensive plan. A wide variety of people were interviewed but this is
only the beginning stages. The next report will give a draft of the issues
and the goals the city will be looking at.
fa I'1_.= !1.V-i7.c
Jeff O'Neill was going to do an update on all the projects currently in
process, but because of the time this was delayed until the next meeting.
10. Parks Commission activity update.
The Meadow Oak Park will be built this eummer. This five acre park,
located directly south of the I-94 railroad overpass, will include two youth
baseball fields and a socoer/football field.
The Parks Commission is requesting City Council to complete a detailed
facilities study in coWunction with the comprehensive plan update.
Dick Frio decided to wait until the next meeting for the items he requested to
discuss at this meeting.
11. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:45.
SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously.
RespectEWly submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 6
9
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/18/95
Pubtic Hea4aa—Cpnsiderp#9n of $ ¢-til variance reauest to thq side
yard setback minimum yrhich would allow gonstruction of a double.
car aaraae. Anolicant Dennis Anderson (GA-)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
When the public hearing notice was prepared and sent for publication, an
encroachment into the front yard setback should have also been included in
the public hearing notice in addition to the rear yard setback. However, the
intent of the public hearing notification has been demonstrated, and the
additional variance will be considered for an encroachment into the front
yard setback also at the Planning Commission meeting.
The applicant is proposing to build an attached garage onto the front of his
existing garage, with its proposed location to be within 4 R of the required
10 -ft side yard setback requirement and 7 R 6 in from the required 30 -ft
front yard setback. Mr. Anderson's situation is somewhat unique in
similarity to other structures in the inner city in the Lower Monticello and
the Original Plat additions where the house and/or garage were pretty
much placed where they wanted to place them on the lots. In
Mr. Anderson's situation, the existing house and garage were pretty much
centered on the lot with no consideration for future expansion of the garage.
By today's standards, a single -car garage with a 12 -ft width is very
inadequate.
In looking at Mr. Anderson's request in relationship to the other houses in
the 400 block of East Third Street, Mr. Anderson's house pretty much lines
up with the front yard setback of the two adjoining houses to the east of
him, with the exception of the house on the west of his lot, which races New
Street, which is set back farther. Typically, when considering a variance
request within a setback requirement, especially the front yard setback, the
closest one can come forward with an addition in the front yard is up to
being equal with the existing houses on either side if they were the same or
half the difference between the setback of his residence and an adjoining
residence on either side of him. However, in Mr. Anderson's case, he's
proposing to come f wther forward than any of the houses in the 400 block
either on the east or west side of him. The encroachment into the minimum
10 -ft side yard has been considered many times before by the Monticello
Planning Commission. To allow the construction of the garage as proposed
would allow a placement of the proposed garage addition up to within 4 R of
the side property line.
Mr. Anderson has demonstrated no hardship for his request for construction
of an attached garage within a side yard or front yard setback requirement.
Anderson could construct a dowJtW accessory garage in the rear of his
property and be within the minimum setback requirements: however, to
gain access to the back of his property from the west lido, which is also the
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/18/96
garage aide of his house, would encounter only a 7 R driving surface, as
they have to maintain a minimum 3 -ft green area separation from a side
property line to a driveway.
Approve a 6 -ft variance request to the side yard minimum setback,
which would allow construction of a double -car garage.
Deny the 6 -ft variance request to the side yard minimum setback,
which would allow construction of a double -car garage.
Decision B:
Approve a 22 ft 6 in variance request to the front yard setback
minimum, which would allow construction of a double -car garage.
Deny a 22 ft 6 in variance request to the fiont yard setback
minimum, which would allow construction of a double -car garage.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In terms of Decision A, City staff would consider approval of his 4 -ft side
yard variance request to the minimum 10 -ft side yard setback requirement
if a 6 -ft addition was constructed onto his existing garage. This would allow
the existing garage to be expanded to 16 R wide by 20 ft deep. Even though
this is smaller than the minimum two -car garage size as required by
ordinance, it still would be consistent with Planning Commission's
consideration and approval of a somewhat similar variance request this past
fall on a property at the west end of Monticello on West Broadway.
In terms of Decision B, staff recommend denial of Mr. Anderson's variance
request to allow a 22 ft 6 in encroachment into the front yard setback
requirement. Mr. Anderson has clearly not demonstrated a rationale for a
hardship in his request fbr a variance from the minimum front yard setback
requirement.
Copy of location of variance request; Copy of site plan.
'CEConsideration of a 6'variance request to thesideyard setback minimum wWch wouldallow construction of a double car garage.Location: Lot 7, Block 35, Lower Monticello. s.Applicant: Dennis Anderson.
8
m
l
qtr le;r;
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4(18/85
ggblic HqarinL Cons(deration of an Amendment �o a Qoa¢itional
permits wd_gAZar&q cenkLin p 84 wnina dietrlct
lamthggis Beck L. L9" �. 2. & ¢. and & Original Plat Ama gmt.
Cedar street Garden Center. (J -O.)
Please see attached report from City Planner Steve Grittman.
JrNAM 13-1995 1601 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.02/12
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj URBAN PL ANNI NO. Of SIGN • OANaaT a ESS A aC M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Maodcello planning Cammlassrbe
FROM Stwhan t3dtiman
DAM 13 Apol 19M
i18: Montioe0o - Cedar Street oa:dm Center (Pomedy 'Fair's')
FMZ NO: 191.07 - 95.05
BQCkromd and AefePf ere
Cedar Sam Oardm Curter ins appllad far m —dm— to a C=ditional Use Pbrndt adsla dly
issued m tb* ptedeoaser •Fair's Qndm Cmtd' 10 198. lie purpose of the uomdmeot is
to relocate rock bias from the Broadway itontsge to the northeast nowt r of the aha, currealy
devooed to cmtWmmt goraga Abe tock Ma wa" be rmbmd with additional paMq. No
other changes are proposed at this time. Amaodmaxe to conditional Use Pemits are psooessed
as it they wan acw application.
An*sfs of Abamdva
The Condbiasid Use Peewit granmd in 1989 iocLthd a terms of totnmm eoaditi ms which
contoWled use of the rim. Por the pepma of stilt mvlew, it is nand thu the pnvlou*
eamblished coo tlau were properly cam lied wit, however as isspectioe should be mdo to
vmiiy this umwdm luded in than amWkk t wsa an agmemem that a portion of the
paddog area along Broadway Head not be anted as ttnoire+d is the 7dnlog ordinance, ponding
Ram eMnalm of tho paddng WL Aho gprosed to the ort&d permit was rdW Sem► paving
the drive area usviog the tai him. 'ILir reW vu gmasM via a vadaace Som the paving
standards, with the ocndkim that no cum mer throo tm t were to be allawod.
5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 • St. Lewis Park, MiN 55418 • (612) 595.906 -Fax. 595-9
S
RPR -13-1995 1601 PAC 612 595 9837 P.03i12
This application would fulfill the expeetaticn of the 1989 approval. At this time, paving of the
new parking area and complexion of the curbing ehonld be a .,., ,;.....,.,., of the CUP
amendment. The traM patten for wsomm, as "&and on the site plan, will be to —
from Cedar Street, and travel either north or east through the patkdng let liaftic which travels
east would then exit at a utrb cut adjacent to the former location of the tuck bins. As with the
previous permit, a coition should be attached restricting mama tragic from the unpaved
areas, presuming that the City is willing to allow the conth ance of the gravel surfacing in such
areas.
With regard to the relocation of the nock bins, the previous site plan indicates a six foot high
cedar fence or Landscape screen from the nddgx=g properties. The City should review the
existing screening and detczm its adequacy to butffef the proposed rock bin use from the
adjoining properties.
SWUM
The aereo. Garden Center ftaertandmg sign is abated in a non -conforming ktdation adjacent
to the Broadway Street right of way. Mw Monticello Untog Ordinance requires a setback for
such signs of fift 1 feet ftom the property line. Modification of the sign will likely be
;,,pored by the new operators to ceders the name change. Aooanfing to staff informatics. the
dgn was sot gzaoted any special permission to be located within the rewired sign setback. As
such, the location of this dge would need to be addressed in order to be able to make a finding
that the proposed ConGitioaal Use Permit will meet she standards of the Toning Ordinance, a
typical factor in the City's consideration of such Permits.
Tbeae are throe possibilities which the Planning Commission may wish to consider. First would
be a requirement that rim sign be reloated to meet the required fiikeen fact setback. It is act
chat from the silo Am but such a relocation may require the elimination of one of the parking
spaces. A second alternative would be consideration of a variaaoe from the sign saback
.,,r. Variances t,quis: a finding of special condition ttbft to a non -economic
physical hardship which would othervin prec compliance with the xdo== sandatds
In our quick review of this sibAtioa, such a special condition may be dbMcuk to show.
A third afternative would be consideration of ammdmeats to the sign regulations relating to
haesmodtog sight stnbaeb. There may be some juMication to this alternative in that while
freestanding signs are requited to be net back fifteen feet from rho dght of way, buildings an
be constructed with a sero setback in this mating dlstdct. Tying the sign setbacks to building
setbacks may be a reasonable approach which the Planning Commission should discuss.
Resgardlesr of the solhuion chorea, the appliant should be given some direction as the Plamlog
Com miW n's wishes fn this regard. Any epphc&tioas necessary could be made by the appllcom
and considered by the Planning Commission at its am mewing.
O
APR -13-1995 1601 NAC 612 595 985? P. 04/12
The Pkmtmg Commim m is tbaged with ooaridering the following hums in in ohm
of a Conditional Uae Pa antcatim
• Rclaticm to the C....,,.. J, . Plan.
• ibe �,..,;r,;,,i.:...1 area tavolved.
• Whether such um wlll tend to of ach a ly dupndate the area in which it is propmW
• lbe chauetcerr of the sumourAng area.
• The demonstrated sued for such um
Tbia assn is a part of the encoded Ce ml llaahteaa District, and is nomd 134, ReglMd
Budnm District. Simco the use e:Ws on the preoea location little fmpac t is apeted an the
mn=m Dog mighborbood. As noted above, ffie dmqw to the aperatim shaald be reviewed
as ritzy relate to the immediately adjoining property mm % puftulady in tht ad *aq of the
sneering m the sins. it would be eWected that a reduction. in the amour of gravel sudme, and
mole a8-drad cu paddy g, a clea= Ou" for mch parking ah—ld impetus the BWB
operation is nbdm to the migltboubood.
CORChAdtioss
The amendment to the garden oeeter CaaditioW Use Pmmb is an oppormm4 to remove an
htoompatible un fttml the Broadway Strad fi,amfage. In addhim the atpamaion of the off-aaeet
gad . g ahoold serve to to&= oongmd m m the area during peat seasaus of um, and reduce
the pamatlal for adveae humca ftnm otpsved ansa In and mar the Cemtal Bustma District
For thm masms, approval of ffie Canal and Ute Prrusit ameadmaa is . J 'his
...,....,.,,.; tin is based up= the followlmg candmans:
1. The garden cc= demamatzata compH= with aII paevlously impoaad ooadldoa of
the o fthW CM isatmd In 1989.
2. The am from which the rock him am bdag removed b to be paved and a rbed, per
Ordinance nulairements for eamm=W padding lots, and per the of the 1989
Pmmlt appmvaL
3. 'he arra the new rock blm lmcatiaa is deeesmimed to be ably
screened a pnaemt, or addidortal aaeealag a bra are ngahed.
4. The ftemadiog aigm is made to to amdarmin , altber through an am—eat to the
Osdoaam or mlomd m of the dgn to meet conuollhcg nftm*L
pc: Jeff O'NeW
d
J
1(
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/18/95
7. PaUc Aearina-C.onsideratlon of adopting an ordinance
amendment establisbing outside storage as an interim use in an I;g
sone. Applicant. Jav Mom$.
8. Public Hearing-Coaeideratlgn of grantlng pn interim use nevi ,fig
pllQw optMe gtorage ae an interim gee at I.ot 8. Black; Oakwood
Industrial Park Beoond Addition. Applicant. Jav Mone (J.O.)
These three items were not published by the Monticello Times: therefore,
the public hearings cannot be held at this time on these three items and
must be continued to the next meeting. Steve Grittman's report is attached
for your review.
FAC
PPR 1602 NRC 612 595 9851 P.05/12
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
URBAN PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
rilli WRAMUM .
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Richard )WA--gblintste-phm Gslttman
DATE 13 Aprfl 1995
R8 Monticello - Inuit Use OrdmaDco
= NO: 191.06 -95.03
BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE
Recently, the Chy has bpm approached by a hadmear (WSW MormW to allow the ato:age
of tucks and trailers on an indostzial pucel as a pducipal rue of property. 7be Toning
Ordinance does not amemly havo huh a use, and the high>eat and treat use of this pamd is
clady a more ioemse lodasedal out. However, a spectfie use may be appropti a far a limited
time until the o16— use Can be realized. 7bfs memorandum Will outline the canal factors
which control imedm ash and allow for thetr effective implementation.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIM
Current Coodittoos. The City of Monticello Zodng Ordinance does not have any stated
0=11dons for interim uses WitMO tpedfic wofag dimicts. A repeat segag by a landowner of
an lodtuodal paten to ore the land for other dw the 1ae 1 or conditional uses gmclAed
brought to the anc tion of the City the possibility of accommodadng aha of lu d on a temporary
basis. If it an be shown that the an was not f000ntpatiDle with the um of wrog coding
I P; p pea, or conflict with the long term derelopmertt fntet 1 spealflod by the City's
Comprehensive Plan, an h—ofm un approach may be appropriaoe.
In light of rho moeat tequnae, the City could choose to deny the sppllatfoe, permit the use
through an ordinance amcndmcm, or inuoduce Interim use. This repot recommends an
addition to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Admfnistradw aeaion, had the Bnslnesa
District Provisions section, Subd. 16, I-2, Heat' Industrial, to include pcd maaoe criteria
regarding the impl—don of inedm tea.
5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - St. LOtAS Park, MN 55416 - (612) 5959836 -Fax. 595.9837
�o -0
APR -13-1995 1602 WC 612 595 9837 P.06i12
Purpose and Indent. The underlying pugKM of allowing a specific use within a designated
zoning district is to ensure the owner of a specific parcel, neighboring property owners, and the
City, a predicable level of activity and impact expected from use of that spedffc pared. For
this tramp, no uses an allowed other than those tpecif3ed by the Zoning Ordinance as
per, may, or conditional.
On ooh, however, the City may disxaver certain uses for a property which an temporary
in names, serve a specific function in a designated location, and offer little, if any, d-rimemal
et%ca to adabbosiog landowma. In the case of a podcular use an a spedfle property unnd
a pennanmt location for that use can be found, or a use which will be splamd with amkipated
development or redevelopment comfarming to the permitted, acoesaary, or conditional ares of
the zoning district, or a use rive of the long mage dralopmemt goals of the area, allowing
that ore on a temporary basis tuy be a bbl gmtegy. In such canes. all
parties recognize the temporary nature of such a use, and that at ten-fnatism of the interim use
permit, the specified use will terminate, unless otherwise reinstated by the City.
Procedure and CAna 1 Standards. With roped to processing of irttaim use permits, there
are two conditions which apply. The first is a 'in * condition, to which an —8
legal as legal no . , 3, �... ' fated- use is considered allowable and treated acoording to the
existing standards and as an iateam use in a specified zoning district. lbs second condition is
where a new Interim use, allowable In the zoning district u a rA is applied for. Under such
a An -fl— the application is prooesaed similar to the procedures ad standards usodated with
a condtdoml use permit to etuure the fntegfty of the use is the speci9ed zoning dismdct and that
the we will not impose any addjtioml burden on the City or neighboring properties.
Termination. perhaps the most significant component of an uteri- use is hs specified
tet-imation. Witbout a oermtuadon dace, a sped fled land use is understood to be permanent„
wbcdmr It is a permitted or conditional use in the district. It may be that a vfolati m of the use
ptnmh Vis, a change in the City's Zoning Ordinance, or radevekpment of the use
property reads the Imerim use permit terminated before the specified termination data.
However. barring such conditions. the property owner can expect the interim use permit to
coWhe on a specified data. At that time. oartlmtad activity on such a property would be
considered non-oonfonmfag and poatibly Hiegel. anku otherwise spedtied by the City.
Interim Ura In an >adustrlal Tmtoa Dist. Tho Chy of Monticello is currently considering
a tegmest by a ludowaes to pawlde outdoor Mmp of tencb and t -cling agdpmeat on a
parcel zoned far industrial developmeat. To address We request, u well u ray other which
may be applied to the I-2 Toning Dlmiat, the A -&-mal purpose of the toning district most
be preserved.
Tho Amdaammal purpose of the I-2 District is to provide baQdltg SMS for heavy industrial
activity removed hom the less imensive activity of eaideatid and comm=W land use.
Outdoor storage of vehicles and egttlpmmt does not cottathrte the highest and beet use of this
property. However, because a versant induatdal lot may be the most appropriate pbm to store
0
FPR -13-1995 1602 PWC 612 595 9837 P.07/12
vehicles and equipment until a more 6OWft rite is located. an intnim 460 pumit fior this
purpose may be considered a desirable alternative to leaving the lead vacant UCW as mduadal
building and use is I q - P I for the she.
Aa interim use permit for outdoor storage of trucks and clucking egnipmmt ahwld totbude the
following conditions:
1. The permit. would be mmended to the ptopetty owner for a mazimnm comber of years
agreed upon by the landowner and the City under a development cow At
tarrWniLlon, the taodowoer may apply for another iurtedm rase permit. Eowevesr. both
the hndowmr and the City will be mgdnd to asseaa the .....A...1, ., . .,,I contem of th0
sppltution and ductmim whaher gmtiag auraher I--,- use permh is in the bent
Interest of the City and neighboring property owe m.
2. The interim use puma would require the applicant to meet the applies regain+mean
of 3, Section 2, General liui>dmg and PwIc®ance RoaWnsamts, similar m the
requirements necessary to receive a omditi nal use permit to this dismkt.
3. The mtefm use permit would include as a condition of approval pohibldag enacting of
automobiles
4. The tntetim use permit would require a gravel sus&ce, sainble for oatdoor stone, and
reinforcing the tempmoy nature of the use on thin site.
S. The imndm no permit would require vimal sereecag to compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2.0 of the zoning Ordiaame regarding fencing, landscaping, and scteso3q. Of
particular dgaifieaooe is the saeenmg's opacity and use of natural planting es a
compooust of the sneering. The rearm of the sceoeatag and aecassaty mvpt>o 1 - by
the hadowoer should be at the diraadon of the City. EWwever, the conditions: speed
upon ahould be documented as a componem of tie tamed permit.
6. Tie Im use pemit would require any de=fog and map of trucb sod agnfpmcm
to comply with the setback conditions of Chapter 3, Section 3 of the City's Zeaft
Ordinance. Far the '1•2' Zardng Distdet, W fencing and dwU have a SO foot
mink— hent and tear yard setback sod 30 foot minimum side yard setbacks.
The conditions mentioned above apply to the opeciRc use of outdoor stmage for herb and
uueldng equipment. u the City finds three are other types of amp am to be WlWed is Ws
section, spodflc conditions may be required of them as well. However, the general iotas of
imerpt,tg visually attractive. ono -obtrusive land usua wUhin the lodutatial district shrould be
(0
RPR -13-1945 1603 NRC 612 595 9837 P.08i12
In ngxmse to the City of Memticdla's inane t to estabtiad og an int-im ase component to their
Taming Ordinance, our mice bee drafted such an oudhmm. Tbia aaditmnoe rorb to anticipate
.. ,,. of the City to special condidoos which want an boafm use
permit. while at the tame time anticWft pmaW adverse eRem of inch oras on the district
is which they are allowed. The City should ermblish the A.....;' l...., . camp1 Of the
interim aa0 pert ptnO0dm1B, inch that interim ass may be fnchtded in individual zoning
distdm when the treed or desire Is war anted.
Under the City's Zoning Order, the planning Commisdon is to consider five ibctoss in its
aomddeeation of an amembmemt. The Plandag Commidon is to then maim a fmdmg of fact and
I—. to the City C000W regarding the propoaed amendama Tho five fiscooaa am
aSyfaliawe:
L BelatiomeWp to the C ....... d......�,, . Phm.
The h taftrt rue of outdoor atomge for tmrb and vac" egaipmaot. ff It adhetm to the
oomdidout d MMW fn the ardimace, will apport the Isteadw of the Camp sive
Pias to mainmie an attractive, Sundamal Bial pads in Monticello.
L Geographic area law" In the regnant.
The aatdmr storage of ttucb and aracldng cqufp— is cmapa ible with the ordinary
activities of the iadu&W pariu In which the hand- an is proposed.
g. Tendmw of the proposal to depredate the area.
It is blghty anlilo.>yr that the proposed use tbllatvlttg requited eoodhiams for approval will
depredate the value of ad pmpada to the 4.2'. Heavy industrial Zoning
Distft.
d. C huneter Of the taureuadhtg area.
The laetiam for the proposed intafm rue hes the trust activity and aoomsory outdoor
aotage typical of Indamzial pub. The ttsclutom ad an amdoor stotago an is tYpital
of fadateW part. The htelaslm of an outdoor storage Willy dedicated to nncb and
mtcldog equtpmem is W&MY ampadhle with the chamaet d the ata.
S. II ....... — , , � I m atd foram me.
The landowner hes detttaamoted as ima fkim oma on the adsdng lot being used for
uue]dog busloess activity. Therdbm, additional lord for storage of tmcb sod nuddng
equipmteat would allow grater udlity of the laodowaa's to whb a pmvdaed use.
6 -8
RPR -13-1995 1683 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.09i12
In reviewing the request by Mr. Moaell, the City has three Options for response:
Fant, the City ,stay choose to deny the rogoo:- issuing a findings of fact which States the
proposed use is not in the best i of the City or adjacent lanr moan. The City may
ds=mizm that it is in their best bi0mest to ptnmae a pemmment use ad baildi n I.i �...... ..
program for the property, and to leave the land vacant until such time a pemitoed or conditional
lead use is proposed.
Second, the City may choose m d-1- the proposed use as a permitted or eondhicmal tae is the
1-2' Zoning Dist do t, lemiog a 8odtogs of &a which stases the proposed on is deshable and
nom-obausive is this district on a pemtmeat basis. The City may datmmim do the storage of
trucks cad trucking egoipment is comrpuft with the ft -h,-61 chamicter of the dLMot and
therefore in the beat intareom of the City, this we may be classified as pertained or conditional.
Finally, the City may choose to define the as an h -m- use to the 11-21, lmh=ial
Dlmdct. In this case, the toning claoUlcallon would aeoommodats a special . of
temporary nature. 11ds action would have the egea of pmiimft a use on a property which
would ordinarily remain vacant until a peace no could be as mishod Mase specifically.
the potentia to no a site in an esdWshed iodostdal disodet for the amp of UwJm and
bucking eager, would .the temporary needs of the landowner without
providing adverse impacts to rho City or adjaoeat landowners.
It is the , d'ti„ of our Office to adopt an ordinance which pesmin inoedm Ores to
mining districts, provided tbey am developed and maiamioodl for eon-abousivo activities. In
addition, our office .... „ .,,., ,. i the inchaion of outba atotege for trncto and trudd IS
equipamaat as an h-shn on In the '1-2', Heavy Industrial 2wing Db uicc.
To this end, we have provided a Dm8 Onhuanoe in three and= lir the City's mvim. the
first section amends the tide of C*W 22 of the Mantiemo Zoning MOtaaoe to hschtde
Intahn Um. MW moomd section attnmds Chapter 22 to hshsde the adoministration of iatmtn,
uses a000sding to the Mamtioollo Zoning Ordiomoe. The third Section amends Chaptm 16,-1-
2-, Heavy Industrial District waft* to include aatdoor amp of backs and trucking
equipment, and the conditions Lander which it umy be approved
it is our lateatlan by providing the pmvims isaro dim ulon and the Draft Ordinance user the
City of Monticello will have the necessary lafeaansdon by which an effective response, may be
delivered to Mr. Marten's merit
FPR -13-1995 1604 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10i12 -
OW]NANCE NO.
CM OF MONTiMAD
AN ORMANCE AM8NIMG, 7IM AMUMTRATIME SEC IM OF TEM
MONTICEIAD ZONING ORMiANCE TO INCLUDE AN ADM1NIMATIVE
PROCESS PBOMING, FOR DMMW UM PI KWM
MM Crff COUNCIL OF THE C11Y OF MONTICELLO DOES >fOMEBY ORDAIN:
NKUMLL The Tide of Chapter 22 of the MoodW Zoning Ordlmm be amended to
md: Admhdsuzdoa - AmendlooM, ConditlmW Use Pesmiro, and Iatedm Use Permits.
edhmy Section 33-4, Iote:lm Use Permit, be added to Chapter 22, AdmiWsmdon -
Amndmcats, Caadidonal Use Pesmlu, sod Iatedm Use Permits of dw Momlallo Zoning
Ordh mce to td a, follm:
22.4 ]NTERD,4 USE PEBBUT
A. PURPOSE AND IN71INTs The purpose and bunt of showing fotefm uses is:
1. To allow a ase for a brief pedod of dom undl a permuenn loadon is obtained
or while the pumneut London is under constmxxim.
2. To avow a use thu is presently judged acmuble by the City Council, but that
with anticipated „ :.,,,, or mdevelopmmt, will no be eooepmblo in the
bum or will be mPlamd in the Anme by a penaitted or coal use allowed
within the trspecdve &NdCL
3. To allow a use which b a Heave of sudelpmed long tinge ehango to an arra and
which b in compliance with the C. „ .,,,. „ °, . Plan provided that acid rue
maiaaiat h- a 3 and aoopodbUtty with smaoaodtag ase ad b is lmeping with
the at sal chaactm and dull smdatds of exb ft uses and development.
(a-
WR -13-1995 16:04 NFC 612 595 9837 P.11i12
1. Uses: Used defined as iotazim ries which prtaeady eda a a legd use
or a legal non-confarming use widdu a respective dosing district shad be
cooddered approved and shall be treated as allowable uses.
2. New Use: Uses defined as ioadm use which do sot psmady asla wbhin a
rtapealve zmdog district shad be prooeaae - according to the standards and
prooedur 5 for a Cot%MimW we permit as esmbHdwd by Section 22 of thio
Ordinance.
C. GEMMAL gTANDARM: An iaterim use shall nom* with the Mowing:
1. ung Uu3: Shan be in—tf%.......... . with zoning and building aandards in
effect st the thus of iahial consmwd m and development dad da caminue to be
governed by such reg puma in the fisbae.
2. Now Uses:
a. Made the standards of a mxHdoml use permit tet fbob in Sad= 22-3
Of this Cbaptat.
b. Camfamas to the applicable ,, .,. stsmdards an forth In Chapter 3,
Sec iom 2. of d& ZcnWS Ordinance.
C. 7be use is allowed as an iatarim ase In the mqective >7emiog dlstriet.
d. 2be date or ev®t that wiH tmmdnatD the um Can be identified wbb
cmtd .
C. lbe use wM mt impose adds iwW Coax an the pdit if it is tmoesssry for
the p ift to ttlm the prepetty In the Arturo
C The user apm to any comdhiom met the City Camra deems sppteprhue
for petmiseicm of the ase.
D. '1ZDlMNATION: An Interim use W tennirte0e on the heppealm of say of the
fsDmwiag eva n. whiebma Ara ooatn:
1. The date rated to the permit.
2. Upon viobd= of condidams under whip the permit wad !sated
2
J
9* -13-1995 1604 NAC 612 595 9837 P.12/12
3. Upon chop in the City's =nWg regulations which senders the use non -
4. The —. . m of the use and property upon which It Is located to a permitted
or condWlattal use as aVowed within the =Vecdve waft district.
&CftA. Secdcu 16-5, Immim Uses, be added to Chspar 16, -1-2-, Heavy ln&t=W
District, to toad a foDows:
16-5 V?rZRD4 USE& IU foUowbg are horlm uses In an 01-21 Dhukt Obqmlms an
hued- um pcmk based on the ptnoedmea set ftft in sad fqpboad by Chapter 22 of
this Oho):
A. Outdoor s- g of truths and g equipment, provided that
1. A modfled tombothm date Is dommeriltxL
2. no . 6 p of Chat9ter 3, Section 2. Goomal banding
&W Pp Fm,rngn, P In Ifft
3. Mm p=lt the pa*ft Of Somobnes.
4. 7be pmk spedfia a pLvd xmhm sdtW* for the paddng of trucks.
S. 7bo permit Modfies visual mmeoiog in a with Chtpter 3,
Se 2.0. of this Ordlosom
6. 7be, Permit modfies the setbacks af fait and amp in
W=Hmme With 3. Section 3 of this Ordham, and that do=
softft am clearly designated an the site plan to be approved.
3 912
PPR-13-1995 16:22 WC 612 5% 9W? P.01
rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C UROAN PLANNING • O K a 1 O N • MARKET a 5 a t A a C M
r
PAIMRANDM
70, moodo ih) plandma
FROM Richard 1
DAZE: 13
RE. ldandedb - Iaxamp)a Site Plan
FILE NO; 191.06 - 95.03
Atted ed please find an example of a site plan for the property being aooddaW for use m an
outdoor amp area for uncia and budding aqu19mumt Among the fealm expected an a dw
plan ale:
1. Lag dlmeadoma
2. Anitub tion of vehicle aooeaa. iw1a iag width
3. b iniamm NQW=d aeftdm
4. Btmemt of aotllaced area
S. Parldeg au11110 material
6. FandM, b cbWft detail of type of Laodog to be used, web as caalog graphic
7. Scteeahfg/iodoc401pg. pbaft typa iced
B. pattem
9. Other b mtea *few= to tae tire.
We hope WE aadm the appU= In pnwidWS the Chy tho meoenaq ...... , t. , for eft
evwwd m of sire peopoaed pl�I*L
Should you bave my aaatim pJmm aaD.
5775 Wayzata Blvd • Sufte SSS • St. Lama Park, MN 55418 • (812) 595 -9838 -Fax. $95.9837
�v
PPR -13-1995 1622
NAC
` C7rarta.
C
612 5% 9937 P-02
�%ONjiRS ,Coop
1114y'= CAM
,r=.L rb4enal
I
'SAWPLE Sire -amu
to. too' -Do
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/18/95
The sketch plan attached is provided for the purpose of identifying the
Shadow Pines area for residential uses. The developer requests that the
comprehensive plan specifically address the concept of development of single
family residential uses at the proposed location. Planning Commission is
pA asked to review the sketch plan design at this time.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/18/95
18. Review Monticello Cbamb gr at Commerrp umpgsal to dImAw a
permanent reader board at the interwAdlon of State Mgbway 86
and Broadway. Consideration of calling for a wblle bmaring on
Qrdinance amendmonja necessary to accommodate rearrest (Steve
arittman report). (J.o.)
Please see attached proposal from the Monticello Chamber of Commerce.
Steve Gridman will report on strategy for amending the ordinance to
accommodate the request.
k
H1
f t�t�tdt 1►�'��t�tY
Chamber of Commerce
CHANGEABLE
COPY
16
TOP
VIEW