Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-07-1992MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 1992 - 6 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: Jon Bogart, Dan McConnon
Staff Present: Gary Anderson; Jeff O'Neill; Rick Wolfsteller;
John Simola; Bret Weise, Consulting Engineer;
and Paul Weingarden, City Attorney
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, at 6:02 p.m.
2. :ublic Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit
which would allow a public utility buildinq in a PZM zone.
Applicant, Citv of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the background
of the conditional use permit request to allow a public
utility building in a PZM zone. He stated that the
neighboring uses include the following: Immediately to the
south of the building are three residential uses and a sheet
metal shop, followed by a portion of Ruff Auto Parts.
Immediately to the west is West Cello Apartments, a multi-
family residential housing consisting of four 12 -unit
buildings. To the north of the property is the open green
area for the Pinewood Elementary School. To the east is the
railroad tracks and a single family house just beyond the
tracks.
The building proposed is to be a 15,000 eq ft vehicle cold
storage facility with a sign shop near the southwest corner of
the building. An outside fuel dispensing facility is located
near the southeast property corner. The main entrance to the
facility is southwest of the public works offices.
Landscaping requirements state that the site must have a
minimum of 37 overstory tree plantings. Currently on site
there are many more than 36 tree plantings; however, some are
smaller than required. If one counts two undersized trees as
one, the net number of trees on the site is 36. O'Neill noted
that the minimum number of trees (37) will be exceeded with
the proposed tree planting screening along the west side of
the property. The plantings along the west side and part of
the north side to the fenced -in area will be 6 -ft coniferous
tree plantings planted in a staggered fashion in two rows
10 ft apart.
Completion of the existing security fence will surround the
west side and a portion of the north side of the property to
include the open storage aroa for the pole building facility
located in the northwest cornor. The fence along the south
Page 1 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/92
side of the property between the public works offices and the
southwest corner of the property will include slats between
the chain link fence.
Hard surfacing and curbing are to be omitted along the east
side of the new facility to allow existing surface water
drainage between the new public works facility and the
existing public works maintenance garage and also to allow
phase II construction between these two buildings. If hard
surfacing of this area is required with phase I, portions of
it would have to be removed with phase II construction.
Curbing on the south side of the building south of the
existing off-street employee parking spaces will also be
omitted at this time and will be installed as part of phase II
expansion.
Bret Weiss, Consulting Engineer, addressed the on-site
drainage issues for this project. All drainage will occur on
this site and will be disposed of through a pipe installed
under the railroad tracks and through a culvert allowing
surface water to be disposed of through a ditch system on the
north side of the railroad tracks. The on-site and off-site
drainage of this facility is being incorporated into the
overall city drainage plan.
John Simola, Public Works Director, explained the location of
the existing buildings on the public works site in
relationship to the proposed cold storage facility to be
constructed as part of phase I.
Phase II will include construction of a salt shed near the
northeast corner of the proposed cold storage facility, with
a washing room facility constructed between the existing
public works maintenance garage and the new cold storage
facility. Phase II will also include construction of meeting
facilities and restroom facilities south of the existing
public works garage near the southeast corner.
Phase III may include the construction of a building between
the existing public works garage and the existing office
building. Part of the office building may be removed.
Simola also explained the proposed gravel storage area with a
gravel surface. This proposed area is at times needed for
storage of gravel fill material during city projects and
granite chips used as part of sealcoating projects.
O'Neill explained the ordinance requirements, which include
the following four conditions:
1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained, and required setbacks and side yard
requirements are met.
Page 2 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/92
2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and
landscaping are provided in accordance with
Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance.
3. The facility must have direct access to a county
and city/state aid highway.
4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
O'Neill read portions of a letter received from County
Assessor, Doug Gruber, indicating that if the public works
facility is constructed and screened as shown on the plans,
thero should be no adverse effect on the neighboring single
family uses.
When considering an ordinance amendment, five items shall be
considered as follows: 1) consistency with the comprehensive
plan; 2) the geographical area involved; 3) the character of
the surrounding area; 4) whether such use will tend to or
actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed; and 5)
the demonstrated need for such use.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lamm, then opened the public
hearing.
Mrs. Christie DeMars of 103 Golf Course Road explained that
she received a letter from Chris Holm addressing issues of
concern as a home owner in regard to the proposed public works
facility. Mrs. DeMars stated that, as a home owner, she was
in favor of the proposed use of the property. It is
consistent with what has been done there in the pest, and the
City is a good neighbor to her property, which is located two
houses and the apartment complex awawy from the public works
facility.
Mr. Chris Holm, owner of the West Cello Apartments, addressed
the following issues:
1. The increase from approximately 11,300 sq ft of
building area to approximately 21,000 eq ft of
building area. He clearly indicated the site was
too small to serve the needs of the city as it
continues to grow.
2. Holm stated that there is some site cleanup that in
needed; but why not move the building site farther
away from his residential multi -family use? Why
does it have to be at the proposed location?
Page J O
01.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/92
3. After meeting with John Simola and Jeff O'Neill,
the site is proposed to be screened, but he
indicated that more trees need to be planted.
4. He is currently having an appraisal done of his
property for refinancing; and if the appraisal
shows that his property is reduced in value due to
the expansion of the public works facility, he will
sue the City for lost value to his property.
Mr. Willard Jensen, a Country Club Manor resident, stated that
the site is much too small for expansion to meet the needs of
the city as it grows. He also stated that there is too much
traffic on Golf Course Road with the speed that is posted, and
the speed limit is exceeded more than it is complied with.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission
members.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard
Martie to approve the conditional use permit based on the
following findings:
1. The proposed conditional use permit is consistent
with the purpose of the PZM district, which is to
provide a land use transition between high density
residential land uses and low intensity business
land uses.
2. The site plan, which includes extensive screening,
landscaping, direct access to county and city/state
aid highways, and separation from R-1 and R-2 uses,
is found to be consistent with the stated purpose
of the PZM zone.
3. The present mix of the uses in the PZM district at
this location is compatible with the proposed
conditional use, and the proposed conditional use
is consistent with the geography and character of
the area. The proposed site is sufficiently
separate from single family residential areas and
is centrally located so as to provide ease of
access to all areas of the city which will be
serviced by the facility.
4. The conditional use proposed will not depreciate
the area in which it is proposed, as It will be an
Improvement to what was once a permitted use, which
will enable the City to store vehicles inside which
would otherwise remain outside, and will be
aesthetically pleasing.
Page 4 O
a�
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 7, 1992 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Jon
Bogart, Cindy Lemm
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held
June 15, 1992.
7:04 pm 3.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held
June 22, 1992.
7:06 pm 4.
Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to
Section 2-2 (HB) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
governing home occupations. The proposed amendment
would modify the requirement that "no other than
persons residing on the premises shall be
employed." Applicant, Dave and Joan Theilman.
7:20 pm 5.
Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request to
subdivide an unplatted tract of land into an
industrial subdivision plat. Applicant, Brad and
Mary Barger.
7:30 pm 6.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a
request to amend a condition of the previously -
approved conditional use permit. Applicant,
Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
7:40 pm 7.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a
variance request to allow less than the minimum
off-street parking spaces. Applicant, Hillside
Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
7:50 pm 0.
Continued Public Hearing --A preliminary plat
request entitled "Silver Pox" Commercial
Subdivision to subdivide an existing 6.69 -acre
tract of unplatted land. Applicant, Ed and Arlys
Larson.
Additional Information Items
7:56 pm 1. A variance request to allow a detached garage to be
built within the rear and side yard setback
requirements. Applicant, Dennis Doran. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
7:58 pm 2. Consideration of amending the official zoning map
of the city of Monticello by rezoning all of the
Thomas Park subdivision and that part of the SM 1/4
of the SE 1/4 lying southerly of I-94 from B-2
(limited business) to I-1 (light industrial).
Applicant, City of Monticello Planning Commission.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 7, 1992
Page 2
8:00 pm 3. Conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage, open and outdoor sales as an accessory use
in an I-1 (light industrial) zone. Applicant,
Monticello Boat Works. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation with one
exception --all of the tree requirement must be met.
8:02 pm 4. A variance request to allow an open and outdoor
sale: area to be more than the maximum 308 of the
groes floor area of the principal use. Applicant,
Monticello Boat Works. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:04 pm 5. An ordinance amendment to Chapter 10-8 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance by including
"governmental and public utility buildings" to be
allowed as a conditional use in a PEN (performance
zone mixed) zone. Applicant, City of Monticello
Planning Commission. Council action: Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:06 pm 6. Consideration of granting a conditional use permit
allowing operation of a public utility facility in
a PEN zone. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
8:08 pm 7. An ordinance amendment to Chapter 10-6 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance which identifies
permitted uses in the PEN (performance zone mixed)
zone by deleting or amending 10-6 (Cj, "those uses
that exist prior to the adoption of this chapter."
Applicant, City of Monticello Planning Commission.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
8:10 pm 8. A preliminary plat request entitled "Silver Fox"
Commercial Subdivision to subdivide an existing
6.69 -acre tract of unplatted land. Applicant, Ed
and Arlys Larson. Council action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
8:17 pm 9. A conditional use request to Section 20-2-C of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance which requires that a
planned unit development include an area of at
least 3 acres. Applicant, Investors Together.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
8:14 pm 10. A replatting request to subdivide Outlot A of the
East View residential subdivision. Applicant,
Investors Together. Council action: Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 7, 1992
Page 3
8:16 pm 11. A conditional use request allowing a townhouse
development in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Investors
Together.
8:18 pm 12. Consideration of a variance to the curbing and hard
surfacing requirement. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
6:20 pm 13. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of
a previously -approved conditional use permit.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:22 pm 14. Consideration of a variance request to allow less
than the minimum off-street parking spaces.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:24 pm 15. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which
would allow certain commercial buildings located in
the PZN zone to qualify to follow sign requirements
pertaining to buildings in commercial zones.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:26 pm 16. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow
a sign system for a building with 3 or more
business uses but which, by generally understood
and accepted definitions, is not considered a
shopping center or a shopping mall. Applicant,
Hillside Partnership. Council action: Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
0:28 pm 17. Consideration of a variance request to allow more
than 100 aq ft maximum wall sign square footage.
Consideration of a variance request to allow more
than 25 sq ft maximum pylon sign square footage and
to allow more than the maximum 16 -ft pylon sign
height. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. Council
action: Denied as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:30 pm 18. Considoration of setting a special Planning
Commission meeting date for July 27, 1992, 6 p.m.
8:32 pu 19. Set the neAl .egular meeting date for August 4,
1992, 7 p.m.
604 pm 20. Adjournment.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/92
5. The use of the present site has grown so as to
render the existing buildings inadequate for the
stated purpose and, therefore, requires expansion.
The need for a public works building in a city the
size of Monticello is obvious.
6. The conditional use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
7. The proposed site meets the requirements as
outlined by city ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearino--Consideration of a variance to the curbing and
hard surfacing requirement. Aoolicant. Citv of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the variance
request from the concrete curbing and hard surfacing
requirements in certain areae. O'Neill outlined the areas
where there would be no hard surfacing or curbing at this time
and the areas where the curbing and hard surfacing will be
installed as part of phase II. He also showed an area where
there will be no curbing installed at this time or in future
phases.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
There being no input from the public, the public hearing was
closed, and the meeting was opened for further comments from
the Planning Commission members.
There being no further comments from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Hartle and seconded by
Richard Carlson to approve the variance request to allow no
curbing or hard surfacing in certain areas of the public works
facility site. Motion is based on the finding that the
proposed variance will not 1) impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property; T) unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public street; 3) increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety; or
6) unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the
intent of the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 5 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/97
4. Consideration of the preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids
residential subdivision. Consideration of a conditional use
permit allowing development of a townhome in an R-7 zone.
Consideration of a variance request to the requirement that a
PUD be of at least 3 acres. Applicant, Investors Toqether.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, suggested that, because
it was after 7 o'clock and the City Council meeting was
scheduled to be begin at 7 p.m., Planning Commission table
item t4.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to table the preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids
residential subdivision, to table consideration of a
conditional use permit allowing development of a townhome in
an R-7 zone, and to table consideration of a variance request
to the requirement that a PUD be of at least 3 acres. Notion
carried unanimously.
5. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Pegs 6 O
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICRLIA PLANNING COMMISSION
i
Tuesday, June 2, 1992 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart,
Cindy Lem, and Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick Wolfsteller,
Bret Weiss, and John Simola
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan KcConnon at
7:03 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
May 5, 1992. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow a detached gara%e
to be built within the rear and side vard setback
requirements. Applicant, Dennis Doran.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing.
Dennis Doran was present to request a variance allowing a
detached garage to be built within the side and rear yard
setback requirements. Mr. Doran requested that the garage be
placed within 5 feet of the side property line and 20 feet
from the rear property line.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, played a video tape
showing the location of the existing house on the site and the
proposed location of the garage.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission
members.
Planning Commission members found it difficult to define a
hardship supporting his request. The Information presented
clearly indicated that a garage could be built within the
setback requirements without a variance.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie
to deny the variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the rear and aide yard setback
requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
Reason for denial: Applicant failed to demonstrate a hardship
that would be created without the variance.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of amending the official zoninq
map of the city of Monticello by rezoning all of the Thomas
Park subdivision and that part of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
lying_ southerly of I-94 from B-2 (limited businessl to I-1
jliaht industrial). ApDlicant. City of Monticello Planninq
Commission.
Jeff O'Neill reviewed the proposed amendment to rezone all of
the Thomas Park subdivision and part of an unplatted tract of
land from B-2 to I-1. He indicated that Pat Townsend, owner
of Monti Motors, and Wayne Hoglund, owner of Hoglund Bus
Company, would like to further develop their propertiesi but
under the current B-2 zoning, they are not allowed to expand.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Pat Townsend, owner of Monti Motors, commented that he would
like the area rezoned to I-1, which is what this area was
zoned when he purchased it in 1985.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for further input from the Planning
Commission members.
A motion was made Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard
Martie to approve the zoning ordinance amendment calling for
rezoning of the Thomas Park area from B-2 to I-1 uses. Motion
is based on the finding that since the Thomas Park area is
adjacent to an existing I-1 zone and because it is not likely
that B-2 uses will occur at this siet, it was concluded that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, the geography and character of the area, and will not
result in depreciation of adjoining land values. Motion
carried unanimously.
It is the Planning Commission's view that the proposed
rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood. Rezoning this
area will create a logical extension for the I-1 zoning
district to the south. Furthermore, the property housing
Fingerhut will not necessarily be devalued by the proposed
zoning. The office building in place is consistent with the
I-1 zone and will blend with I-1 uses. The proposed rezoning
is also consistent with the comprehensive plan, which shows
commercial and light industrial development in this area.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/7/92
Public Hearinq--A conditional use request to allow open and
outdoor storage and open and outdoor sales as an accessory use
in an I-1 (_light industrial) zone. Applicant, Monticello Boat
Works. AND
6. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow an open and
outdoor sales area to be more than the maximum 30% of the
gross floor area of the principal use. Applicant, Monticello
Boat Works.
Jeff O'Neill reviewed Pat Townsend's (Monticello Boat Works)
request to have outside storage and sales of boats, motors,
trailers. He played a video tape of the site where
Mr. Townsend proposes his outdoor storage and sales. The
video also showed the land uses surrounding the site. O'Neill
also highlighted the parking and landscaping requirements.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Pat Townsend, part owner of Monticello Boat Works, explained
the problem he has had with growing trees on his property.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission
members.
The discussion amongst Planning Commission members centered
around the need for the screening and minimum tree planting
requirements.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve a conditional use permit allowing Monti
Motors/Boat Works facility to operate in an I-1 zone and grant
a variance to the requirement that the outside sales area
shall not exceed 30% of the floor area of the principal use.
Motion is based on the finding that the proposed use is
consistent with the requirements set forth in the zoning
ordinance and as such, the operation of the site will not
result in the depreciation of adjoining land values, and it is
consistent with the geography and character of the area.
Motion to approve the conditional use permit is subject to the
applicant meeting the requirements noted by the ordinance.
Specifically, proper screening of the storage area from the
right-of-way must be accomplished.
In addition to meeting the requirements noted by ordinance,
the Planning Commission adds the following conditionsi
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
1. Plant 11 trees of a size consistent with code or 6
trees and landscape plantings.
2. No boat sales or storage in stalls reserved for
parking.
3. Stripe the parking lot.
4. No storage or repairs in unscreened areas --sales
only --except the area in front of the overhead
doors.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Public Hearinq--An ordinance amendment to Chapter 10-8 of the
Monticello Zoninq Ordinance by including "governmental and
public utility buildings" to be allowed as a conditional use
in a PEN (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, City of
Monticello Planninq Commission.
Jeff O'Neill reviewed the background of the proposed ordinance
amendment.
John Simola, Public Works Director, explained the existing
conditions around the Monticello Public Works facility.
Chairperson Dan McConnon reflected on the comments made in the
Monticello City Council minutes by Councilmember Dan Blonigen
as to the Planning Commission having no reason to review the
site plan. Mr. McConnon would like to make note in the
June 2, 1992, Planninq Commission meeting minutes that the
request was brought, appropriately, to the Planninq Commission
for their review and their comments whether or not the Council
agreed with them. It was his view that it was appropriate
that the Planning Commission be involved in land use questions
relating to the Public Works facility.
Mr. Chris Holm, President of DKC Properties, asked when the
conditional use request would be considered. It was stated
that it would be considered in the following agenda item.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Richard Carlson to approve an ordinance amendment which would
allow "governmental and public utility buildings" to be
allowed as a conditional use in a PEN zone. The motion is
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
based on the finding that the proposed conditional use and
associated conditions are consistent with the purpose of the
PZM zone. Allowing public buildings in the PZM zone will not
tend to depreciate adjoining property values, and this type of
use is consistent with the geography and character of the PZM
zoning district. Voting in favor: Jon Bogart, Richard
Carlson, Richard Martie, Dan McConnon. Opposed: Cindy Lemm.
Public Hearinq--An ordinance amendment to Chapter 10-6 of the
Monticello Zoninq Ordinance which identifies permitted uses in
the PZM (performance zone mixed) zone by deletina or amendinq
10-6 M, "Those uses that exist prior to the adoption of this
chapter." Applicant. City of Monticello Planninq Commission.
Jeff O'Neill noted that the current language allows all uses
In place prior to adoption of the PZM district regulations to
operate in the PZM zone as a permitted use. This is
problematic because it would allow Ruff Auto to operate as a
permitted use, which would enable Ruff Auto to expand its
operation anywhere In the PZM zone. The amendment would
eliminate the language that identifies Ruff Auto and other
nonconforming uses as permitted uses.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
There being no comments from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting
for input from the Planning Commission members.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie
to approve an ordinance amendment abolishing Section 10-6 [C],
"Those uses that exist prior to the adoption of this chapter."
Motion is based on the finding that the current language is
not consistent with the intent of the ordinance, as the
literal interpretation of the language allows uses not
consistent with the PZM zone purpose as permitted uses.
Voting in favor: Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson,
Dan McConnon. Opposed: Cindy Lemur.
Public Hearing --Consideration of granting a conditional use
RemallowGa operation of a public utility facility in a
PZM zone.
Jeff O'Neill explained the changes that were made to the
sketch plan previously reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
Fuel Dispenslnq Tanks. Council felt that the tanks
should remain in the proposed location. The area
near the proposed fuel dispensing tanks will be
screened with tree plantings and a security fence
at or near the property line.
Tree Requirement. The tree requirement for this
site is 38 trees. There currently are 37 trees on
the site, and 1 more tree is required. O'Neill
then outlined the area where the proposed trees
would be placed.
C. Parking. At the present time, there is sufficient
parking for each employee plus some additional
parking. As part of the future phasing, existing
parking will be removed and a new parking lot will
be created.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Chris Holm, President of DRC Properties, stated his
disgust with the proposed expansion of the Monticello Public
Works facility. In his presentation, Holm highlighted several
areas of concern such as improper notification to the public,
screening, landscaping, and the overall appearance of the site
as noted in the pictures he presented to Planning Commission
members for their review.
O'Neill noted that due to problems with the conditional use
permit notice, formal consideration of the matter should be
considered at a special meeting scheduled for June 19, 1992,
at 6 p.m.
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Jon Bogart to
set a special meeting date for June 15, 1992, at 6 p.m., to
consider granting a conditional use permit allowing operation
of a public utility facility in a PZM zone. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Public Hearinq--A preliminary plat request entitled "Silver
Fox" Commercial subdivision Lo subdivide an existinq 6.69 -acre
tract of unplatted land. Applicant, Ed and Arlys Larson.
Jeff O'Neill reviewed the preliminary plat request. The
preliminary plat wasn't completed in time for this public
hearing, and O'Neill requested that the Planning Commission
table this item until the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie
to table the preliminary plat request entitled "Silver Pox"
Commercial Subdivision to subdivide an existing 6.69 -acre
tract of unplatted land until the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 1992, at 7 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
11. Continued Public Hearino--A conditional use request to
Section 20-2-C of the Monticello Zonino Ordinance which
requires that a elanned unit develownent include an area of at
least 3 acres. ADDlicant, Investors Tooether. AND
12. Continued Public Hearing --A replattinq request to subdivide
Outlot A of the East View residential subdivision. ADDlicant,
Investors Tooether. AND
13. Continued Public Hearinq--A conditional use request allowinq
a townhouse development in an R-2 zone. ADDlicant. Investors
Toqether.
Jeff O'Neill explained that the developers are still working
on the changes as proposed by City Engineer, Bret Weiss.
Planning Commission members were uncomfortable with the work
being incomplete. These items have been tabled for several
meetings.
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie
to table item 111, a conditional use request to Section 20-2-C
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which requires that a
planned unit development include an area of at least 3 acres=
item 112, a replatting request to subdivide Outlot A of the
East View residential subdivision= and item 113, a conditional
use request allowing a townhouse development in an R-2 zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Information Items
Public Hearing --A conditional use request to Section 20-2-C of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which requires that a planned
unit development Include an area of at least 3 acres.
Applicant, Investors Together. Council actions No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
2. Public Hearing --A replatting request to subdivide Outlot A of
the East View residential subdivision. Applicant, Investors
Together. Council actions No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/92
3. Public Hearing --A conditional use request allowing a townhouse
development in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Investors Together.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
4. Consideration of calling a. public hearing on rezoning the
Thomas Park Drive area from B-2 to I-1 zoning district
designation. Applicant, Monti Motors and Hoglund Bus Company.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
S. Consideration of application for a home occupation permit.
Applicant, John Zavodnick. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
6. Review site plan for the public works facility expansion
project, consider calling for a public hearing on amendments
to Section 10-6 [C] and 10-8 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance. Council actions Approved site plan review
recommendation by Monticello Planning Commission with one
exception --the location of the new fuel dispenser area to be
left as is; approved calling for a public hearing as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
7. Consideration of setting a special Planning Commission meeting
date for June 22, 1992, 6 p.m. It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission members to set a special meeting date for
June 22, 1992, beginning at 6 p.m.
S. Set the next regular meeting date for July 7, 1992, 7 p.m. It
was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set
this as the next regular meeting date for the Planning
Commission.
9. A motion was made by Cindy Lem and seconded by Richard Martie
to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9133 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 6
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 22, 1992 - 6 p.m.
i
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, and
Richard Carlson
Members Absent: Dan McConnon
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, at 6:02 p.m.
2. Consideration of approving preliminary plat of the Battle
Rapids subdivision. Applicant, Investors Toqether.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the background
to the preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids residential
subdivision.
A. Grading and Drainage Plan. The developer's engineer to
sign off on the retaining wall.
B. Storm Sewer System. The storm sewer pipe oversizing and
extension to the south property line is to be paid for by
the City of Monticello.
C. Townhouse Association. The agreement is forthcoming, as
it is to be similar to the MacArlund Plaza Townhouse
Association. It needs to be reviewed prior to final plat
approval.
D. Developers Agreement. Currently being finalized. It
will include grading/ retaining wall performance bond.
E. Park Dedication. Park dedication requirements have
already been completed with the platting of the East View
plat.
F. Parkinq Area Screening. The parking area to the south is
to be screened from the view of the Peterson property.
The developers are to work with Mr. Peterson to come up
with a parking area screen that is acceptable to both
parties.
Aeting Chairperson, Cindy Lomm, then opened tho public
hearing. The developers are to post a bond to cover the costs
of the site grading, retaining wall, and screening
requirements. The retaining wall plans are to be signed off
by an engineer.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lamm, then closed the public hearing
and asked for comments from the Planning Commission members.
Page 1 9
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
There being no further comments from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Richard Carlson to approve the preliminary plat contingent on
the following:
1. The preliminary plat should be amended to include
comments made by the City Engineer in his letter of
June 10, 1992. The final plat shall not be granted until
this item is complete.
2. The final plat will be contingent upon the completion of
a development agreement which would include the developer
providing a performance bond in an amount equal to
complete phase I site improvements as defined by the City
Engineer.
3. Final plat approval will be contingent upon preparation
and recording of townhouse association bylaws. Bylaws
must be consistent with the city ordinance governing
planned unit development bylaws.
4. An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent property
to the east to use the Battle Rapids drive area must be
recorded along with the final plat.
5. Final plat approval is contingent on the developer paying
City expenses in excess of the preliminary plat fee
(amount not known at this time).
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of a variance request allowinq development of a
PUD (townhome development) containinq an area of less than 3
acres. Applicant, Investors Toqether.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that a
planned unit development must contain at least 3 acres. The
City Planner, David Licht, has recommended that the City grant
the variance to this provision and also consider deleting this
requirement from our ordinance.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
There being no input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by
Richard Martle and seconded by Jon Bogart to grant a variance
which would allow development of a PUD consisting of an area
leas than 3 acres and authorize City staff to prepare an
amendment eliminating the requirement. Motion is based on the
Page 2 O
3
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
finding that the variance is necessary to allow the use of the
land for townhouse development under the provisions of the R-2
zoning district. The conditional use permit would be valid
and the site plan would be consistent with City requirements.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Consideration of a conditional use permit request which would
allow development of townhouses in an R-2 zone. ADDlicant,
Investors Toqether.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that a
conditional use permit is required in an R-2 (single and two-
family residential) zone to allow development of more than
eight townhouse units. The developers are proposing to build
four separate townhouse buildings consisting of three 4 -unit
buildings and one 2 -unit building. Townhouse development in
the R-2 zone must meet the standards defined in the PUD
requirement as follows: Comprehensive plan and sanitary sewer
plan consistency, common open space, townhome association,
staging of public and common open space, density, utilities,
roadways, landscaping, urban development and availability of
public service, townhouse, and setbacks.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
There being no input from the public, she closed the public
hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning
Commission members.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by
Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
conditional use permit application allowing a townhouse
development in an R-2 zone subject to the following
conditions:
1. A variance must be granted to the requirement that
a PUD encompass an area of at least 3 acres.
2. The final plat must be approved and recorded, and
all conditions associated with the final plat must
be complete. Items relating to the final plat as
noted in the previous agenda item are as follows:
a. The preliminary plat should be amended to
include comments made by the City Engineer in
his letter of June 10, 1992. Final plat
approval shall not be granted until this item
is complete.
b. Final plat approval will be contingent on
completion of a development agreement which
would include the developer providing a
Pape 3 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
performance bond in an amount equal to
complete phase I site plan improvements as
defined by the City Engineer.
C. Final plat approval will be contingent on the
preparation and recording of townhouse
association bylaws. Bylaws must be consistent
with the city ordinance governing planned unit
development bylaws.
d. An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent
property to the east to use the Battle Rapids
drive area must be recorded along with the
final plat.
e. Final plat approval is contingent on the
developer paying City expenses in excess of
the preliminary plat fee (amount not known at
this time).
The motion is based on the finding that a townhome development
at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
regulations governing planned unit developments. The
development is consistent with the character and associated
land uses identified in the R-2 zone. The development will
have direct access to a county road; therefore, traffic impact
on adjoining R-1 uses will be minimized. Therefore, the
development is consistent with the geography of the area. The
need for this type of use has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Motion carried unanimously.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, requested that items i9 and i6 be
considered at the same time. She stated that she would listen to
comments made during the public hearing of the upcoming agenda
items but would not be voting due to a conflict of interest.
5. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of a
previously -approved conditional use permit. Applicant„
Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex. AND
6. Consideration of a variance request to allow less than the
minimum off-street parking spaces. Applicant. Hillside
Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the
developer's request to amend a condition of their conditional
use permit which was granted on August 12, 1991. The
condition they would like amended is condition #1, which
states that "the parking requirements are based on retail use
of the structure only. Restaurant uses only allowed with an
amendment to the conditional use permit."
Page 4 O
3
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
The example that was used to determine the parking space
shortage was as follows: A 4,000 sq ft restaurant with a
3,000 sq ft eating/dining area and 1,000 eq ft of kitchen/food
preparation area would require a total of 88 off-street
parking spaces. The 88 required restaurant parking spaces
minus the 20 retail parking spaces already provided would
create a variance of 68 off-street parking spaces.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Greg Mooney, part owner/developer of the Sixth Street
Annex building, explained that the developers and realtors
have received some requests for restaurant space. The
requests have ranged from a 1,000 sq ft take-out restaurant to
a 4,000 eq ft sit-down restaurant. The revised site plan
shows some additional parking spaces but is still be short of
the required number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Mooney
reminded Planning Commission members that they hope that the
parking lot would be full at all times; but in all reality,
there is a good chance that the parking lot would not be full
during most hours of operation. The developers are proposing
that the operation of the businesses within the Sixth Street
Annex would be very similar to the operations of the Maus
Foods store.
Judy Fleming and Patty Olson of Edina Realty stated that some
of the prospective tenants they have spoken with would be
leasing space for a restaurant. It would most likely be a
2,500 sq ft sit-down restaurant rather than a 4,000 sq ft sit-
down restaurant. The realtors requested that a cap be set on
the maximum number of off-street parking spaces that they
would be allowed to be short.
A 2,500 sq ft restaurant would require a total of 55 off-
street parking spaces, and a 4,000 eq ft restaurant would
require a total of 88 off-street parking spaces.
O'Neill suggested that City staff go back to the consulting
planner and research other communities to see if parking
requirements could be less with these types of businesses
grouped in a common area. Our ordinance currently requires
retail businesses to have one parking space per 200 eq ft of
building area.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning
Commission members.
Page 5 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
Planning Commission members felt uneasy about the high deficit
of off-street parking spaces with this proposal. It was their
feeling that we should look to our consulting planner for
options that might be available to the City prior to making a
decision on this.
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Jon Bogart to table item t5, consideration of a request by
Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex to amend a condition
of a previously -approved conditional use permit, and also to
table item t6, consideration of a variance request by Hillside
Partnership/ Sixth Street Annex to allow less than the minimum
number of off-street parking spaces, until more information is
received from the consulting planner, hopefully by the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 7,
1992, at 7 p.m. Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Richard
Carlson, Jon Bogart. Abstaining: Cindy Lemm.
7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would
allow certain commercial buildings located in a PZM zone to
qualify to follow sign requirements pertaininq to buildings in
commercial zones. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. AND
8. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a sign
system for a buildinq with 3 or more business uses but which,
by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not
considered a shoppinq center or shoppinq mall. Applicant,
Hillside Partnership. AND
Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the
100 sq ft maximum wall sign square footage. Consideration of
a variance request to afiow more than the 25 sq ft maximum
pylon sign square footage, and to allow more than the maximum
16 -ft pylon siqn heiqht. Applicant, Hillside Partnership.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment which would allow buildings in a
PZM zone to qualify for the same sign requirements as in the
B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts. The sign
options that are available in these zones are wall signs up to
300 eq ft in area or 20%, whichever is less, and a pylon sign
with a maximum square footage of 25 sq ft and maximum height
of 16 ft.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
Judy Fleming and Patty Olson of Edina Realty indicated that
there are Maple Grove business owners that are now seriously
considering locating in Monticello and that we should amend
our sign regulations to reflect the changes within the
businesses as they exist today.
Page 6
3
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lamm, then closed the public hearing
and asked for further comments from the Planning Commission
members.
Planning Commission members were very uncomfortable with
amending the square footage and height requirements of the
sign ordinance.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart
to:
A. amend the zoning ordinance to allow certain
commercial buildings located in the PZM zone to
qualify to follow sign requirements pertaining to
buildings in commercial zones. The motion is based
on the finding that the PZM zone is a transition
area between commercial and residential uses.
Allowing intensification of sign systems in the PZM
zone along the perimeter of commercial areas is
consistent with the purpose and is consistent with
the geography and character of the area. The
amendment as proposed will not result in
proliferation of business signs within residential
areas;
B. approve the conditional use permit request subject
to the revision of the sign plan to meet the
requirements of the ordinance. Motion is based on
the finding that the sign system as proposed is
consistent with the requirements set forth by
ordinance. The signs are oriented toward a
commercial area and are away from residential
areas; therefore, the sign system is consistent
with the geography and character of the area;
C. deny the variance request allowing both a pylon
sign and a 300 eq ft sign area based on the finding
that a hardship has not been demonstrated;
therefore, to grant the variance would impair the
intent of the ordinance and set a negative
precedent;
D. deny a 25 -ft variance to the sign area requirement
and deny a 2 -ft variance to the sign height
requirement. This motion is based on the finding
that a hardship has not been demonstrated;
therefore, to grant the variance would impair the
intent of the ordinance and set a negative
precedent.
Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard
Carlson. Abstaining: Cindy Lamm.
Page 7 O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92
Due to the topography of the area, there is little
exposure of the proposed signage to any residential use.
10. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart
to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 6 0
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/97
a. Public Nearing --Consideration of a zonina ordinance amendment
which would eliminate the home occupation limitation that no
other than persons residing on the Qremises shall be employed.
AVplicant. Dave b Joan Thielman. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This zoning ordinance amendment request stems from a home
occupation permit application submitted by Dave and Joan
Thielman. The Thielmans have nearly completed their new home
at 710 Jerry Liefert Drive and wish to engage in a home
occupation at this location that would include hiring of one
part-time employee. They hope to hire an additional employee
If the business grows. The Thielmans operate a music festival
business from an 800 telephone number. Their clients call in
for information on a particular destination. The Thielmans
mail literature to them should they opt to participate in the
festival. All arrangements are made via mail or telephona.
No clients come to the office to conduct business. All
communication between the numerous individuals who assist the
Thielmans when conducting festivals throughout the country is
accomplished through mail and telephone.
The Thielmans propose to construct a red rock parking area on
the opposite side of the house from the garage to be used for
employee parking. They have also already constructed a
sidewalk leading from the employee parking area directly to
the entrance along the side of the home.
REVIEW OF PROPOSAL IN TERNS OF ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Home Occupation "Employees"
Conducting a home occupation utilizing employees appears to be
a contradiction in terms. According to our zoning ordinance,
"no other than persons residing on the premises shall be
employed." The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would
eliminate this provision, thereby allowing persons not
residing on the premises to be employed in the home
occupation.
Home Occupation Site Plan/Entrance
The ordinance states that "home occupations shall not require
Internal or external alterations or involve construction
features not customarily found In dwellings. The entrance to
the space devoted to such occupations shall be within the
building."
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/91
It could be argued that the proposed home occupation site plan
is not consistent with this requirement. This is because the
site includes development of a secondary, unpaved parking area
for use by employees only. In addition, a separate walkway
extending from this secondary parking area directly into the
office is also included. It could be argued that this type of
site design is not consistent with what one would customarily
find in a residential area; therefore, it is not consistent
with the ordinance. This problem could be easily overcome by
eliminating the secondary parking area and requiring that home
occupation related parking be located on the driveway in front
of the garage.
Off -Street Parkinq Limit
The ordinance states that no home occupation shall be
permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one
car for off-street parking at any one given point in time.
Under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, this
requirement is intended to be the limiting factor that will
limit how many employees can work at the site. If the home
occupation needs more than one employee, then the additional
employee will need to find transportation to the site and his
or her presence there not be allowed to generate an additional
Vehicle. The mayor purpose behind this ordinance requirement
is to preserve the appearance of the site as a residence and
not a commercial enterprise.
CRITERIA FOR AMENDING THE ORDINANCE
The zoning ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and
City Council review zoning ordinance amendments in terms of
the character and geography of the area affected, the
comprehensive plan, the demonstrated need, and whether or not
it will tend to depreciate the neighborhood affected by the
zoning ordinance amendment.
Character and GeograDhv of the Aroa
Obviously, allowing numerous employees to work at a home
occupation in a residential zone will result in an increase in
traffic and generally a higher intensity of use which may not
be consistent with the character and geography of residential
areas. On the other hand, if the presence of one or two
employees working at the site is virtually invisible to the
neighborhood, then the zoning ordinance amendment will not
result in an activity that is inconsistent with the character
and geography of the residential area.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan states on page 45 that "home
occupations will be permitted provided such activities are
conducted in a manner which assumes that evidence of such home
occupation is not present." The language in the comprehensive
plan captures the spirit of what the home occupation
regulations are trying to accomplish, and that is to allow
home occupations that are transparent to the neighborhood.
Planning Commission and Council need to determine if the
proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with this purpose
outlined in the comprehensive plan.
Demonstrated Need
It appears that there is a general trend toward development of
"cottage" industries that can operate out of the residence
without a major impact on the residential character of the
area. On the other hand, it could be argued that there are
sufficient commercial lands and buildings available, and this
type of use is better suited to a commercial area; therefore,
the need has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Whether or Not the Use Will Tend to Depreciate Adioininq
Property Values
It could be argued that the current site plan that includes a
separate entrance and a separate parking area for employees
does not blend well with the residential character of the
area; therefore, the proposed home occupation could tend to
depreciate adjoining land values. On the other hand, if the
side parking area is removed and only one vehicle associated
with the home occupation is allowed to be parked at the site
at any one time, it could be argued that the presence of the
home occupation will be difficult to discern and, therefore,
will not result In a depreciation in adjoining land values.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
based on the finding that the amendment is consistent
with the character and geography of the residential
sones, the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, the amendment will not result in a depreciation of
adjoining values, and the need for the zoning ordinance
amendment has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission and Council
aro comfortable with allowing employees that do not
reside at the site to work at the site of a home
occupation.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
Under this alternative, the number of employees working
at the site is limited by the number of cars that could
be allowed to be parked at the site at any one time.
Planning Commission may wish to modify the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment by limiting the number of
employees working at the site to a specific number if it
is not comfortable with relying solely on the parking
requirement to control the total number of employees.
Planning Commission should discuss the potential
requirement that the site plan be modified by eliminating
the separate entrance to the building for the employee
and consider eliminating the separate drive area. These
two features could tend to provide the appearance that
the home is being used for business purposes, which is
inconsistent with the spirit of the home occupation
regulations. It is suggested that any approval of the
zoning ordinance amendment be accompanied by a
requirement that the site plan be modified by having all
off-street parking on the driveway area associated with
the residential use.
The applicant should also be made aware that more than
one employee can be allowed, but no more than one car is
allowed. Obviously, a second employee would need to car
pool with the first or must find an alternative method
for getting to work.
2. Motion to deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
based on the finding that the zoning ordinance amendment
is not consistent with the character and geography of the
residential area, Is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, the need for the zoning ordinance
amendment has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and the
proposed ordinance amendment could result in the
depreciation of adjoining land values.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not
comfortable with eliminating the requirement that home
occupations must be conducted by persons residing in the
home only. It could be argued that allowing employees to
work at home occupations in residential areas is not
consistent with the purpose of a residential zone, which
is to provide for residential land uses only. Hiring
employees to work In a residential area is clearly a
business use, which does not belong in a residential area
no matter how transparent such activity is. The
amendment could open the door to other home occupations
using employees that may not be doeireable.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not
comfortable with the off-street parking requirement as
the factor limiting employees working at the site and
that allowing employees to work at the site will create
additional traffic and would result, in the long term, in
an activity that is not consistent with the character and
geography of a residential area.
Planning Commission could argue that allowing employees
to work at the site will result in an outward appearance
that the home is being used for something other than
residential purposes, which is inconsistent with the
policy outlined in the comprehensive plan.
Finally, this motion could be based on the finding th-tt
allowing employees to work in home occupations will
result in intensification of the use of property in a
quiet residential area and will result in negative
impacts on adjoining properties, which will then result
in a depreciation of adjoining land values.
3. Motion to table the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
and call for a public hearing on development of new
regulations governing home occupations.
Under this proposal, the City would address the issue by
completely revising the ordinance to allow certain home
occupations to occur by "special permit."
According to the City Planner, there are some cities that
have two types of home occupations. The first type is
one in which the home occupation is conducted in a manner
completely consistent with the minimum requirements as
noted by ordinance. Permits for these types of home
occupations are Issued by City staff with no comment or
review by the Planning Commission or City Council.
The other type of home occupation is termed as home
occupations issued by "special permit." These types of
home occupations would be categorized as those that are
somewhat unique but do not necessarily result in a
negative impact on the adjoining properties if properly
regulated. The Thielman home occupation, which would
include employees, and, similarly, the Eavodnick home
occupation recently reviewed would be included in this
category. Both of these home occupations do not
completely adhere to the minimum requirements of the
ordinance; however, at the same time, their operation
could be relatively transparent to the neighborhood. A
provision in the ordinance could be added that would
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
allow these types of home occupations to occur by special
permit, which is essentially a conditional use permit for
home occupations.
Between now and meeting time, I will be collecting more
information regarding this potential alternative.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If Planning Commission is comfortable that the proposal, with
site plan modifications, will not result in a negative impact
and is not concerned about the precedent of allowing employees
to work at the site of a home occupation, then alternative •3
should be selected. The beauty of creating a home occupation
special permit category is that it would allow small
deviations from the rules while limiting the impact of the
precedent.
Each home occupation needing a special permit would be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the
Theilman case, a special permit allowing an employee to work
at the site could be justified because there is no walk-in
commercial traffic. On the other hand, let's say an in-home
beauty shop would like an employee. A beauty shop, though
eligible for a home occupation, could be denied a special
permit allowing an employee because the beauty shop generates
walk-in traffic. In other words, the special permit option
allows the City to tailor conditions to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood while providing
landowners more flexibility in the use of homes for business
use.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Home occupation
application materials; Potential new regulations governing
home occupations by "permitted" and "special" permit.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCLUDES ELIMINATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OUTLINED IN BOLD/UNDERLINED TYPE:
HOME OCCUPATION: Any gainful occupation engaged in by the
occupants of a dwelling at or from the dwelling. Such activity
shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of
the premises. Permissible home occupations shall not include the
conducting of a retail business other than by mail, manufacturing,
retail business other than by mail, manufacturing, and no stock in
trade shall be kept or sold. No other than Persons residing on the
premises shall be employed, no mechanical equipment shall be
employed that is not customarily found in the home, and no more
than one (1) room may be devoted to home occupation use. Such home
occupation shall not require internal or external alterations or
involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings.
The entrance to the space devoted to such occupations shall be
within the dwelling. There shall be no exterior display, no
exterior signs except as allowed in the sign regulations for the
zoning district in which such home occupation is located.
Identification signs indicating the presence of a home occupation
are not allowed in any residential zone. There shall be no
exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home
occupation. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in
or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking
at any given point in time.
Permissible home occupations include, but are not limited to, the
following: art studio, dressmaking, special offices of a
clergyman, lawyer, architect, engineer, accountant, beautician, or
real estate agent or appraiser, when located in a dwelling unit
occupied by the same; and teaching, with musical, dancing, and
other instruction limited to one (1) pupil at one time.
Operation of a home occupation as an accessory use of residential
property first requires issuance of a home occupation permit from
the City of Monticello. Home occupation permits shall be reviewed
and renewed on an annual basis. Failure to operate home
occupations in a manner consistent with the standards stated herein
or failure to comply with building coeo or public nuisance
regulations will result in withdrawal or non -renewal of home
occupation permits. The cost of the permit shall be established by
the City and subject to change from time to time.
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION
HONE OCCUPATION
A home occupation administrative permit allows certain commercial use of
residential land that is clearly incidental or secondary to the principal
residential use of the property. The purpose of the permit process is to
protect the value of residential property by assuring that commercial use
of residential land is properly regulated and conducted in a manner
consistent with rules governing the operation of home occupations. The
information required with this application will assist the City in
determining if the proposed home occupation and its manner of operation are
consistent with rules governing operation of home occupations.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
i
Il Name: IVP E 1Jrn, 1n Thi Minn Phone-Home/Business: / ''Y-4/
'JWeVA Address: /."O'/Q VV , 1�� V( alt Zi . Business Name: ry �.v l (_�� I�
NPW Location: A/Q �PVl1/ L,elPhf ►lr� �e� Application Date:/
Zoning District:
1. Please describe the proposed home occupation activity in general
to ((�� 1
TIS(M
NjiachMQAA)
2. Describe retail sales activity, if any.
`VQAA_
3. Describe manufacturing or repair activity proposed, if any.
tNone'
4. Describe inventory to be kept on the premises, if any.
Now-,
S. will any person other than those residing on the premises be employed
in the hom occupation? If so, p ease dQecribe. YiQ, QLAAO ", .•tlLI.
C7v.a pd� �A`,n9.• L��'' • I:Ai �41p/.i� . ��lp. �J,��u..,,•ry'��aJ'J.
u���.�K�i,.p4-- -4�� F�� �' `~ r•Uy O-�<�..i.X`,•i�.J Qv�J lTv�4. O'C%�v
6.wv� ll any mechanical equipment be used in conjunction with the home
occupation not customarily found in the home? If so, ploaso describe.
}A0NA
7. Howny rooms will NO devoted to the home occupatio use? }-
UrQ-4j'j we".94— . o•• -.►a bu.� Arw�:.�-...,7, (/y,��,/�
HONEOCC.APP: 6/8/92 Page 1 V'
8. Will the home occupation require internal or external alterations or
involve construction? If so, please describe.
Nrnk�_)
9. Where will the entrance to the space dev ted to the home occupation
be located? r{V v'_Q_• UJI �� b1L,
o�t - / C! V(1+�.) � � c' dv J a t Cq
10. Pldas�d descrlbe�signage proposed. Please note that home occupations
in residential districts prohibit signage.
11. Will the home occupation result in outside storage of equipment or
materials used in conjunction with the home occupation? If so, please
desFr,�be.
N a* -Q-•.
12. Is there sufficient hard surface off-street parking available for one
car? Will the home occupation result in more than one customer'g car
being parked on the prezpLses at any given olnt in time? %4Q.
Reviewed
V o J"o'o'J• ��44i;I the regulations associated with op rA ation of a home
occupation, and I have reviewed City staff comments. I do hereby agree to
abide by all City of Monticello home o cupet4on regqlations.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE
1/11/111f 111111.111/111111/1111111111111111111111111111111111/11/11/1/111•
CITY STAFF COMMENTS
Building Inspector; Public Works Director; Assistant City Administrator:
It has been determined by staff that an administrative permit should be
approved/denied with the following conditions:
RENEWAL: Providing that the use for which the permit is granted remains
In conformance with the terms and intent of the ordinance, the
permit shall be automatically renewed each year during the month
of January.
PEE: $1O RECEIPT 1 �s a '� PILE 1
HONEOCC.APP: 6/8/92 Page 2 (9
We operate a music festival business from an 800 telephone number. Our clients
call in for information on a particular destination. We mail our literature to them.
should they opt to participate in our festival, all arrangements are made via mail or
telephone. We are a transparent business in our neighborhood. We do not have a
tangible product. No salespeople call on us. Absolutely no clients come to our
office to conduct business. We have numerous individuals who assist us with
conducting our festivals throughout the country in April and May. These
Individuals do not come to the office for their instructions. They are informed via
mail and phone.
r
J! 1 L- 1-92 W E D 9: 0 1 O
F . 0 2
?o1-'vJ-n 4L &au L Nis
ubd. Enforcem The Buil official
�.shal.l,'h.av: t uthosit order the at ing of anyll rovement vities, when where a vie ion
of t provision f this Secti has been o cially
d anted by t uilding Offi
SEC. 11.22. HOME OCCUPATIONS.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is
to prevent competition with business districts and to
provide a means through the establishment of specific
standards and procedures by which home occupations can be
conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing
the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding
neighborhood. In addition, this Section is intended to
provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between
permitted home occupations and special or customarily "more
sensitive" home occupations, so that permitted home occupa-
tions may be allowed through an administrative process
rather than a legislative hearing process.
Subd. 2. Application. Subject to the non-
conforming use provision of this Section, all occupations
conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of
this Section. This Section shell not be construed, however,
to apply to home occupations accessory to farming.
Subd. 3. Procedures and Permits.
A. Permitted Biome Occupation. Any permitted
home occupation as defined in this Chapter shall require a
"permitted home occuation permit". Such permits shall be
issued subject to t?e conditions of this Section, other
applicable City Code provisions and State law. This permit
may be issued by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based
upon proof of compliance with the provisions of this
Section. Application for the permitted home occupation
permit shall be accompanied by a fee as adopted by the
Council. If the Administrator denies a permitted home
occupation permit to an applicant, the applicant may eypeal
the decision to the Hoard of Adjustment and Appeals, which
shall make the final decision. The permit shall remain in
force and effect until such time as there hes been a change
in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this
Section have been reached. At such time as the City hes
reason to believe that either event has token placer a
public heating shall be held before the Planning Commisaton.
The Council shall make a final decision on whether or not
the permit holder Is entitled to the permit.
B. Special Home Occupation. Any home
occupation which does not meet the specific requirements for
a permitted home occupation as defined in this Section shall O
J U L- 1_9M W E D 9: 0 1 0 F_ O 3
S 11.22
require a "special home occupation permit" which shall be
applied for, reviewed and disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Section 11.07 of this Chapter.
C. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning
Commission and the Council may impose such conditions of the
granting of a "special home occupation permit" as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this
Section.
D. Effect of Permit. A "special home
occupation permit" may be issued fora period of one (1)
year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of
up to three (3) years each. each application for permit
renewal shall, however, be processed in accordance with the
procedural requirements of the initial special home
occupation permit.
X. Transferability. Permits .shall not run
with the land and shall not be transferable.
B. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit
by Non-use. whenever within one (1) year after granting a
permit, the use as permitted by the permit ,shall not have
been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void
unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete
the work has been granted by the Council. Such extension
shall be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning
Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expira-
tion of the original permit. There shall be no charge for
the filing of such petition. The request for extension
shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate
the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation and to the Council for a
decision.
G. Reconsideration. Whenever an application
for a permit has been considered and denied by the Council,
a similar application for apermit affecting substantially
the same property shall not be considered again by the
Planning Commission or Council for at least six (6) morlthe
from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider
such matter is made by not lose than Lour -fifths (4/5) vote
of the full Council.
H. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall
not have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of
having obtained a previous permit. In applying for and
accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his
monetary investment in the home occupation will be fully
amortised over the life of the permit and that a permit
renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment. Each
application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed
without taking into consideration that a previous permit hes
been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a permit
shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of O
a permit.
J! l L- 1-92 W E D 9: 0 2 0 P. 04
$ 11.12
Subd. 4. Requirement; General provisions. All
horse occupations shall comply with the following general
provisions and according to definition, the applicable
requirement provisions.
A. General Provisions.
1. No home occupation shall produce
light glare, noise, odor or vibration that will in any way
have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby
property.
2. No equipment shall be used in the
home occupation which will create electrical interference to
surrounding properties.
3. Any home occupation shall be clearly
Incidental and secondary to the residential use of the
premises, should not change the residential character
thereof, and shall result in no incompatibility or
dieturbance to the surrounding residential does.
4. No home occupation shall require
internal or external alterations or involvg construction
features not customarily found in dwellings except where
required to comply with local and state fire and police
recommendations.
S. There shall be no exterior storage
of equipment or materials used in the home occupation,
except personal automobiles used in the home occupation may
be parked on the site.
6. The home occupation shall meet all
applicable fire and building codes.
7. There shall be no exterior dis lay
or exterior signs or interior display or interior oigns
which are visible from outside the dwelling with the excep-
tion of directional and identification/business signs to the
extent authorised by the provisions of the City Code
relating to signs.
S. All home occupations shall comply
with the provisions of the City Coda.
9. No home occupation shall be
conducted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7t00 A.M.
unless said occupation is contained entirely within the
principal building and will not require any on -street
parking facilitioo.
B. Require mental Permitted Home occupations.
1. No person other than those who
customarily reside on the premises shall be employed.
2. All permitted home occupations shall
be conducted entirely within the principal building and may
not be conducted in accessory building.
_11JL - 1 -92 W E D G. :03 0
P . 0 -5
S 11.22
3. Permitted home occupations shall not
create a parking demand in excess of that which can be
accommodated in an existing driveway, where no vehicle is
parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line or
edge of paved surface.
4. Permitted home occupations include
and are limited to: art studio, dressmaking, secretarial
services, family day care, foster care, professional offices
and teaching with musical, dancing and other instructions
which consist of no more then one pupil at a time and
similar uses.
5. The home occupation shall not
involve any of the following: repair service or manufactur-
ing which requires equipment other than found in a dwellings
teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil
at a timei over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off
the premises, except for those brand name products that are
not marketed and sold in a wholesale or retail outlet.
�.� C. Requirements; Special Home Occupation.
1. No person other than a resident
shall conduct the home occupation, except where the
-� applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique
i` conditions or need for non-resident assistance and that this
exception would not compromise the intent of this Chapter.
2. Examples of special home occupations
includes barber and beauty services, day care -group
nursery, photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening,
small appliances and small engine repair and the like.
3. The home occupation may involve any
of the following: stook -in -trade incidental to the perfor-
mance of the service, repair service or manufacturing which
requires equipment other than customarily found in a home,
the teaching with musical, dancing and other instruction of
more than one pupil at a time.
4. Special home occupations may be
allowed to accommodate their parking demand through utiliza-
tion of on -street parking. In such case where on-atreet
parking facilities ace necessary, however, the Council shall
maintain the right to establish the maximum number of on-
otrest spaces permitted and increase or decrease that
maximum number when and where changing conditions require
additional review.
Bubd. 5. Non -Conforming Use. Existing home
occupations lawfully existing on the effective date Of this
Chapter may continue as non -conforming uses. They shall,
however, be required to obtain permits for their continued
opperation. Any existing home occupation that is diecon-
tinued for a period oP more than 160 days, or is in 0
JUL- 1-92 W E D 9: e- 4 O
P . or.
S 11.22
` violation of the provisions of this Chapter under which it
was initially established, shall be brought into conformity
with the provisions of this Section.
Subd. 6. Inspection. The City hereby reserves
the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect
the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to
insure compliance with the provisions of this section or any
conditions additionally imposed.
SEC. .23. DAY NURSERY P ILITISS.
Subd. 1 Purpose. a regul on of y care
nu ery facil as in th zoning egulati s is
e ablish st ards and p adures b ich da are fac
ies can b conducted hin the y with jeopar kin
the hes , safety d gener welfare f the d car
partic anis and/ the su unding ighborho Thi
Beet n establis a the Ci a minima requirem ts�for t e
d
as lishment a day rs facili which a not defin
a permitte uses by ate Statu or which re operated in
sea othe than si a famil omes. D care tacilit es
other t n those a ined p itted us by State Statu as
which perste a singl amily dw Ing as an access ry
use all be ubject t action 1 2 of this Chapter
pr eased a a home upation.
Subd. Applicat n. Day care nurse fac!li-
ties all be sidered a ermitted conditions use within
all a korai g�iatricte !the City and ehal a subject to
th regulayi�ons and r uirements of Secti 11.07 of ,his
apter. / n add it i to the City regul on, all day :are
tacilit operatio shall comply with a minimum require-
ments/6f the Mi sota Department of elfare regulations, as
maybe amended
bd. 3. Declared of Conditions. a Planning
Commiss n and Council m impose such co tions on the
granti of a day care acility conditi use perm!;: as
may necessery to ry out the pua and provision, of
th Section.
Sub d. Site P1 n�Drawing Necessary. -A1*1
applicatio for a day sate cility conditional usplpermit
shall b ccompanied b site plan drawn to cala and
dimen nod displayin hs information requi by Section
11. of this Chapter
Subd. General Provision Day care eilitie2
shall be olio d as a principal as an ac Gory roe,
provided t t the day care oil ties at all the
applicable rovisions of this ction.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
s. Public Nearinq--A preliminary plat revuest to subdivide an
unplatted tract of land into an industrial subdivision plat.
Applicant. Brad and Mary Baraer. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dennis Taylor, Taylor Land Surveyors, has indicated he
would be unable to complete the preliminary plat requirements
for the Barger's industrial subdivision plat by the July 7,
1992, meeting. The information will be available to the
Monticello City staff in ample time prior to a requested
special meeting date. A special meeting has been tentatively
scheduled for July 27, 1992, at 6 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
6. Continued Public Hearina--Cons ideration of a reauest to amend
a condition of the previously-aDQroved conditional use permit.
ADDlicant. Hillside PartnershiD/Sixth Street Annex. AND
7. Continued Public Hearina--Consideration of a variance reauest
to allow less than the minimum off-street parkinq spaces.
!B2plicant. Hillside PartnershiD/Sixth Street Annex. (J.O.)
STAFF UPDATE:
Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants has nearly
completed his review of the 6th Street Annex site plan in
terms of impact on parking created by a 2,500 sq ft
restaurant. It is expected that a complete report will be
delivered to you on Monday.
Here is a quick preview of his report. It appears that
Monticello's parking requirement is reasonable when compared
to industry standards. According to Grittman, the City does
not have unreasonable parking requirements. In order to allow
the 2,500 sq ft restaurant space, Grittman will likely propose
that additional parking be created at the site, perhaps in the
extreme southwest corner of the site just south of the access
drive onto Cedar Street.
AS another alternative, the City could consider amending the
conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with a seating
capacity of 140 seats. Under this scenario, the intensity or
impact of the restaurant use would not be regulated by
limiting restaurant square footage. No additional parking
would be required if the restaurant is limited to 140 seats.
The notes above are based on phone conversations with Steve
Grittman. A full report with alternatives pertaining to the
requested amendment to the conditional use permit and the
parking variance will be delivered on Monday.
s
ru •Pl�..,.4
D'4A A/ter.-�.w i
GoP.t. f•c-'�.�al Sic<z SGvtl
Ad
1 n /4 lQe<,lrco
p�4
60/0—) .
J
-, -,F;,-/ -?f 7/G/^Y
Rubl4c—Hearing: Consideration of a request to amend a
condition of the previously approved conditional use permit.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
(� �! PublIt-Heari'dg: Consideration of a variance request to allow
L less than the minimum off-street parking spaces. Hillside
Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
A. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND `
L
On July 22, 1992, the Plann.l.wg- Comm ssion conducted a public
hearing on the two items above and ale ted to table both matters
pending comments from a City Planner. lso at the meeting of the
22nd, the applicant reduced the request or restaurant space from
4,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. The restaurant area or
2,500 square feet represents 9.6 percent of the available
commercial space within the 6th street annex. Please read the
yPlanner's report before reading on.
a' B. ALTERNATIVES
1. Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing restaurant at
the site contingent on the following.
a. Limit the restaurant area to 2,500 square feet.
b. Create 16 additional parking stalls on the site
Amendments to the existing approved plan that are
made to accommodate additional parking stalls must
be reviewed and approved by the City.
This alternative based on the finding that the proposed addition of
a small restaurant to the site is Incidental and consistent with
the retail activities occurring at the site.The additional traffic
created by the restaurant activity will not exceed the capacity of
the roads or parking lot serving the site.
Under this alternative, no variances to the parking stall
requirement would be necessary. Ten of the additional parking
spaces would likely be created along the southern boundary of the
property between the retaining wall and the driveway access to
Cedar Street. The remaining 8 spaces could be developed as angle
parking along the northern boundary of the site plan. The curb
line now in place io 20' from the property line. Directly behind
the curb is a fairly steep slope to the bottozj,o f the rail road
ditch. The revised plan would move the curb ib' closer to the
property line and due to the existing slope, a eign4icant amount
of fill material would be needed. Moving the curb Ye' closer to
the property line say have an impact on the line of spruce treed
that are earmarked for planting along the northern boundary of the
property.
(�` '.
1 `
') jla `��� Co .n..�1. -. &.# v��} arl..f 4, c li<tro/ ✓/
bCc0..+f1 't dof4 r.41 A�fao {tn S, �/ '�O r4evt/0f .4;.,O:a_l �,; c. ik•�
nF tom.:, /occ.S:w. y I y:aid /ancht l/
2. Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing restaurant at
the site contingent on the following.
Total restaurant square footage and associated
parking demand shall not exceed parking stall
capacity. Pac.a.T - ,*+ .i ;
This alternative based on the finding that the proposed addition of
a small restaurant to the site is incidental and consistent with
the retail activities occurring at the site The additional traffic
created by the restaurant activity will not exceed the capacity of
the roads or parking lot serving the site.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission encourages the
applicant to work the numbers backwards. The total restaurant
space under this alternative is defined by the number of surplus or
extra parking spaces that are available or can be created. For
y� example, if the applicant is able to develop 10 additional parking
��space�,, then this number, when added to the existing surplus (13)
would permit a restaurant of approximately 1,900 square feet. No
variances would be needed under this alternative However the
restaurant would be 1,900 square feet versus 2,500 square feet.
Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing 2,500 square
foot restaurant at the site and grant a variance allowing
a commercial retail alto with less than the required
number of parking stall.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would allow the
restaurant as proposed (2,500 square feet) but would not require
that the full amount of additional parking be created to off -set
the deficit. This alternative may be difficult to justify as there
is no hardship or unique circumstances that justify granting of the
variance. Granting a variance in this case would appear to impair
the intent of the ordinance. The variance could also result in on -
street parking and subsequent traffic congestion.
4. Motion to deny CUP amendment and deny variances based on
the finding that the additional traffic created by the
restaurant use will exceed the capacity of the roadways
and parking areas serving the site.
This alternative could be selected if the applicant is unwilling to p
meet the requirements outlined under one or two above.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION lel PlIV'11
Staff recommends alternative on*-" two. Beth alternatives result*,
In maintaining the integrity of the zoning ordinance while
providing the developer with the opportunity to develop a
r&lajj �le1V —^-w^ " reotaurant at the site.
C
51b,, a(—S C.den Slr.t�. Wt o,. Ca
A L- f ` o_ C.e..+---AA' - o f r ia..
fl.dt fbF1 ea lo.., Iwo !..•. �/r,l(. j a .dd.t:.•� fir..✓ (.Qt (o -id fn.f/
2 fa(.� h�an,✓ 61, /..t.,.4.1 .v.-✓.,�.__._ w dr.:N)u;.,..e$
jul -- 6-9= MON 14 1 O P..c 1.2
IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.,
C U R E A N PLANNING • DESIGN . MAR R e T R E E IIA R C N
MEMORaiNDIUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grictmaa
DATE: 6 July 1992
&E: Monticello • Shopping Center parking
FILE N0: 191.07 . 92.04
This report is intended to summarize our discussions regarding
parking requirements in a shopping center. At a parkin
requirement of 126 spaces, the existing plan shows 139, an excess
of 13 spaces. If you convert a portion of this center from retail
to restaurant, you will increase the parking demand an the site.
Following are some general comments to keep in mind:
o we use a 131 ratio for calculating restaurant space without
knowing the floor plan. This means a 2,800 square feet
reotaurant would be 1,250 square feet kitchen and equal
dining. Such a restaurant would require 42 spaces, but they
eliminate li spaces required for the retail. This is a net
increased requirement of 31, 13 of which exist on the site as
excess. Thus, you might expect an increase in parking supply
of at least 1S spaces to accommodate this restaurant.
o A 4,000 square foot restaurant would require 68 spaces,
replace 18 retail spaces for a net of a 50 space increase.
Subtract the 18 excess and the required new Supply is 37.
o Shopping centers are sometimes given a parking reduction
credit for joint use. However, mazy smaller centers peak
during the day, as do their restaurazte during lunch. Thus,
the joint use concept, assuming differing peak periods, may
not be valid. Wo recommend caution in this area.
o The south aide of the center some to have adequate area for
substantial head -in parking off of the drive aisle. Due to
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 53416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595.9637
JUL.- 6-92 M O N 14:!51 O P- 0:3
the fact that this is the only entrance drive, this is not the
best location for a lot of new parking. To accommodate this
you might consider adding spaces between the retaining wall
and the driveway access, keeping a 40 foot setback to minimize
congestion.
Once you arrive at an acceptable parking supply, you may allow
change in the arrangement of the restaurant as long as they do
not exceed a certain number of seats. Thus if the restaurant
space is remodeled or changed to a dif!erent operator, you
need not require a new CVP if the seat count is not increased.
In fact, you may allow as much area as desired if the seat
count stays constant.
We would not recommend altering your parking requirements for
restaurants. They have proven to be reasonably accurate
predictors in most situatioae, and they are in line with
several other standards we checked.
o As a final consideration, you may wish to `work backward* to
assign restaurant square footage. For instance, if you assume
an additional 10 new spaces, added to the existing 13 space
surplus, you can show a supply of 23 spaces. This would
permit a restaurant of approximately 1,900 spare feet, 950
square feet each of kitchen and restaurant. This requires 32
spaces, leas 9 which would have been required for retail, a
net increase of 23, which is equal to the new supply. This
restaurant space would be expected to be able to seat
approximately 72 people.
.JUL— F• J •i
,•,l `i•.�w. '!-,£iY 1 i '! f ><'Il,t } �!, gr.,.s,e t.. s+a.,
Iy � qc � I
r `�. � I I Y I ,I I_ . _. 'a I' i •I 1 !� I{+ i ''� 1 �J.KI .Y T• f.1�►.vT ry1�.,.,.
t ��' �t I��. I ,••.teI . r-_, . ,{ .t SAN 7&fo . 140 P•., r.e
l ti .cam V/ �` � • ` , �! ,,�' �e i
0; coo
IL
MAUS ?96f
`'� _.._..—•--••—.•—.—.•—•-- � � ----• J .,.•—•.—.•—•--•-- }7ess� 6le A �� I• 17edCi� ��l,11
Aj
ypi
—.100is
oe
_wan m.• � �� \ pslk�� a<<4 '\ i•�.
I:�t:.imf _��I PatC11 FJ1Ck0011 Af0090DU16 I I .■ I 1 I A ►RO►O{ID CIIAN CIMIIR
A'�O��A '�1 '1•SL� MOMllCluo, WMWI{OIA
rF '_�-?t 71617}
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request to amend a
condition of the previously approved conditional use permit.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership/ Sixth Street Annex.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a variance request to allow
less than the minimum off-street parking spaces. Hillside
Partnership/Sixth Street Annex.
A. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND
On July 22, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the two items above and elected to table both matters
pending comments from a City Planner. Also at the meeting of the
22nd, the applicant reduces the request for restaurant space from
6,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. The restaurant area or
2,500 square feet represents 9.6 percent of the available
commercial space within the 6th street annex. Please read the
Planner's report before reading on.
ALTERNATIVES
Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing restaurant at
the site contingent on the following.
Limit the restaurant area to 2,500 square feet.
b. Create 18 additional parking stalls on the site
Amendments to the existing approved plan that are
made to accommodate additional parking stake must
be reviewed and approved by the City.
This alternative based on the finding that the proposed addition of
a small restaurant to the site is incidental and consistent with
the retail activities occurring at the site.The additional traffic
created by the restaurant activity will not exceed the capacity of
the roads or parking lot serving the site.
Under this alternative, no variances to the parking stall
requirement would be necessary. Ten of the additional parking
spaces would likely be created along the southern boundary of the
property between the retaining wall and the driveway access to
Ceder Street. The remaining 8 spaces could be developed as angle
parking along the northern boundary of the site plan. The curb
line now in place is 20' from the property line. Directly behind
the curb is a fairly steep slope to the bottom of the rail road
ditch. The revised plan would move the curb 10' closer to the
property line and due to the existing elope, a significant amount
of fill material would be needed. Moving the curb 10' closer to
the property line may have an Impact on the line of spruce trees
that are earmarked for planting along the northern boundary of the
property.
Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing restaurant at
the site contingent on the following.
Total restaurant square footage and associated
parking demand shall not exceed parking stall
capacity.
This alternative based on the finding that the proposed addition of
a small restaurant to the site is incidental and consistent with
the retail activities occurring at the site The additional traffic
created by the restaurant activity will not exceed the capacity of
the roads or parking lot serving the site.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission encourages the
applicant to work the numbers backwards. The total restaurant
space under this alternative is defined by the number of surplus or
extra parking spaces that are available or can be created. For
example, if the applicant is able to develop 10 additional parking
spaces, then this number, when added to the existing surplus (13)
would permit a restaurant of approximately 1,900 square feet. No
variances would be needed under this alternative However the
restaurant would be 1,900 square feet versus 2,800 square feet.
3. Motion to approve amendment to CUP allowing 2,500 square
foot restaurant at the site and grant a variance allowing
a commercial retail site with less than the required
number of parking stall.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would allow the
restaurant as proposed (2,800 square feet) but would not require
that the full amount of additional parking be created to off -set
the deficit. This alternative may be difficult to justify as there
Is no hardship or unique circumstances that justify granting of the
variance. Granting a variance in this case would appear to impair
the intent of the ordinance. The variance could also result In on -
street parking and subsequent traffic congestion.
Motion to deny CUP amendment and deny variances based on
the finding that the additional traffic created by the
restaurant use will exceed the capacity of the roadways
and parking areas serving the site.
This alternative could be selected if the applicant Is unwilling to
meet the requirements outlined under one or two above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative one or two. Both alternatives result
In maintaining the integrity of the zoning ordinance while
providing the developer with the opportunity to develop a
relatively small restaurant at the site.
JUL— 6-9^. MON 1 4:-Z 1 O P. Q=
tryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R B A N PLANNING- 09101 GN . M A R K e T MESRARCN
MM+IORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
PROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 6 July 1992
AE: Monticello - Shopping center parking
PILE N0: 191.07 - 92.04
This report is intended to summarize our discussions regarding
parking requirements in a shopping center. At a parking
requirement of 126 spaces, the existing plan shows 139, an excess
of 13 spaces. If you convert a portion of this center from retail
to restaurant, you will increase the parking demand on the site.
Following are some general comments to keep in mind:
o we use a 1:1 ratio for calculating restaurant space without
knowing the floor plan. This means a 2,800 square feet
restaurant would be 1,250 square feet kitchen and equal
dining. Such a restaurant would require 42 spaces, but they
eliminate 11 spaces required for the retail. This is a net
increased requirement of 11, 13 of which exist on the site as
excess. Thus, you might expect an increase in parking supply
of at least 18 spaces to accommodate this restaurant.
o A 4,000 square toot restaurant would require 6e spaces,
replace le retail spaces for a net of a 50 space Increase.
Subtract the 13 excess and the required new supply is 37.
o Shopping centers are sometimes given a parking reduction
credit for joint use. However, many smaller centers peak
during the day, as do their restaurants during lurch. Thus,
the joint use concept, assuming differing peak periods, may
not be valid. We recommend caution in this area.
o The south side of the center some to have adequate area for
substantial head -in parking off of the drive aisle. Due to
6775 Wayteta Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9836 -Fax. 595.9837
J U L- 6-92 M O N 14:!51 O P . 0:3
the fact that this is the only entrance drive, this is not the
beat location for a lot of new parking. To accommodate this
you might consider adding spaces between the retaining wall
and the driveway access, keeping a 40 foot setback to minimize
congestion.
Once you arrive at an acceptable parking supply, you may allow
change in the arrangement of the restaurant as long as they do
not exceed a certain number of seats. Thus if the restaurant
space is remodeled or changed to a different operator, you
need not require a new CUP if the seat count is not increased.
In fact, you may allow as much area as desired if the seat
count stays constant.
o we would not recommend altering your parking requirements for
restaurants. They have proven to be reasonably accurate
predictors in most situations, and they are in line with
several other standards we checked.
o As a final consideration, you may wish to 'work backward* to
assign restaurant square footage. For instance, if you assume
an additional 10 new spaces, added to the existing 13 space
surplus, you can show a supply of 23 spaces. This would
permit a restaurant of approximately 1,900 square feet, 950
:quare feet each of kitchen and restaurant. This requires 32
spaces, less 9 which would have been required for retail, a
net increase of 73, which is equal to the new supply. This
restaurant space would be expected to be able to seat
approximately 72 people.
�r 11L - 5 -?2 M 111 1 4 _ _ 0
lit. 'E� 't,
k • �� � I � l I, .�. � 'I � l�,.t �' � •11� � �t y ', 2souu .i rr. C..reat �....,,,
lit
VNI
.• a coo
L• i� �,.�:.�.
�0.4
� S
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/92
s. Continued Public Rearing --A preliminary Dlat request entitled
"Silver Fox• commercial subdivision to subdivide an existinq
6.69 -acre tract of unDlatted land. ADDlicant. Ed and Arles
Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City staff has not had ample time to review the revisions
submitted on the preliminary plat for the Silver Fox
commercial subdivision. The applicants are requesting that
the public hearing be continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on August 4, 1992, at 7 p.m.
c