The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-07-1997AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMIWION Tuesday, October 7, 1897 - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 2, 1997. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit/ planned unit development and a preliminary plat to allow the development of a townhouse project to be known as lGein Farms Estates 2nd Addition. Applicant, E & K Development. 6. Public Hearing—Consideration of an application for a rezoning from R-1, single family, to R-2, single and two family residential, to permit the development of a 14 -unit townhouse project under a planned unit development. Applicant, Monticello Country Club. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow 1) the establishment of an autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor storage area within a B-3, Highway Business, zoning district, 2) a planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with adjacent autobody shop), and 3) a variance from the minimum 30 -ft rear yard setback requirements imposed in the B-3 zoning district. Applicant, John Johnson. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of 1) a conditional use permit to allow open/outdoor storage, sale and service and automobile (recreational vehicle) repair within a B-3 zoning district, and 2) a variance from the minimum 6 -ft setback imposed upon parking areas and associated with commercial uses. Applicant, Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of Monticello RV Center, Inc. 9. Public Hearing. -Consideration of variances from the following: 1) minimum 6 -ft setback for off-street parking areas associated with commercial uses, 2) minimum 40 -ft driveway separation from intersecting streets. Applicant, Roger Hedtko on behalf of Snyder Drug. 10. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance Brom the 30 -ft dont yard setback imposed in R-2 zoning districts. Applicant, Gerald Anderson. Agenda Monticello Planning Commission October 7, 1997 Page 2 11. Public Hearing—Consideration of. 1) a zoning ordinance map amendment changing the district designation from A0, Agricultural Open Space, to B-3, Highway Business; 2) a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales, outdoor storage, and automotive body repair in a B-3 zoning district; and 3) a variance from the City's off-street parking curbing requirements. Applicant, Gould Brothers Chevrolet. 12. Public Hearing --Consideration of an application for rezoning from 1-2 to planned unit development district to allow mixed uses on a combination of parcels, variance from the setback requirements for a loading dock, PUD permit to allow construction of a loading dock, and phasing of other required improvements to a nonconforming building. Applicant, Jeff Burns/Uttle Mountain Feed. 13. Continued Public Hearing—Consideration of text and map amendments renaming BC (business campus) zoning district to I- IA (light industrial district A); and consideration of text amendments to the business campus district regulations by eliminating the green space requirement outside of the standard setback requirements. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 14. Zoning ordinance revisions (outline form) for consideration in implementing the MCP Plan goals and objectives in downtown Monticello. 15. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment to Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to required fencing, screening, and landscaping by adding tree preservation and replacement regulations. 16. Adjournment. NIIN Tl'ES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 2,1887.7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Dick Martie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Members Absent: Jon Bogart Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. rail to ardp.r. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frie. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Klein Farms Estates 2nd Addition is requesting the public hearing be tabled until the next meeting in October. O'Neill added this was unusual to continue a public hearing twice however, there are no limitations on the number of times a pubic hearing could be continued. Dick Frie stated the people that were interested in the public hearing could call city hall the day of the meeting to make sure the applicant had not pulled the item. Frie added it is difficult to notify the neighboring property owners when an applicant pulls an item because there is not always ample time to do a mailing. The residents at the meeting expressed concern that fourplexes might be built in the next phase. Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated the residents did not have the right to request the property be rezoned, however, they could request the Planning Commission call for a public hearing to review the zoning in this area. This request should be submitted in writing to city hall staff two weeks before the meeting. Jeff O'Neill assured the residents the applicant will be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for action at the next meeting. would be given a deadline to complete the plans or the item will be denied. 2. Approval of minutes of regulng m e in6h led .luly1- 1997 i DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE Page 1 (D Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2197 JULY 1, 1997, REGULAR MEETING, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST b, 1997, REGULAR MEETING, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Vn aid ration of adding items to thea n a. Rod Dragsten inquired if the Commission should review all of the zoning, especially the PZM zone, at one of the next meetings. After discussion, the Commissioners decided to wait until after the joint meeting with the Council, IDC, and Planning Commission on September 29, 1997, to take further action. Jeff O'Neill requested discussion on representation on the MCP Board from the Planning Commission. b, ritize A comments. There were no citizens comments. 6. Publir. H ring- Vnnaiderntionof a 9 -ft variance mqupAt to the 10 -ft minimum side ,yard setback renuirem nt. Applicant- Joan Paterson. — - Steve Grittman reported Ms. Joan Paterson has applied for a variance from the required ten foot side yard setback in the R-2 District. The parcel in question is currently improved with a single family home and driveway to the proposed garage location, one foot from the property line. The request is to replace the previous garage structure which was damaged in the recent storm. As a legal, non -conforming structure, the previous garage was permitted to stay in its nonconforming location without interference. However, the Zoning Ordinance requires that once a non -conforming structure is damaged by more than Wk, it may only be reestablished in iWl conformance with the Zoning Ordinance standards, in this case ten feet. Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Joan Patterson, applicant, stated the driveway is 90 feet long and moving the garage 10 feet will make the distance even longer. The backyard would be useless because the lot is so narrow the garage would be in the middle of the yard. The house and garage have been there for 50 years and it has worked Pegs 2 O Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97 fine Joan Marquette, friend of applicant, stated the driveway is very long and making longer could cause a safety problem. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The commissioners inquired if there could be another alternative, possibly, turning the garage so it would not have to be in the middle of the back yard? Grittman inquired if the Commission thought the R2 district in the Original Plat was too restrictive. The tote are all long and narrow and should the setbacks be reviewed and possibly changed. There was also discussion on the RI district in the Original Plat because of the similar lots being long and narrow and causing difficulty for new construction. The Commissioners agreed that the ordinance requirements in the RI and the R2 in the Original Plat should be reviewed and if Ms. Patterson could wait to build her garage that could help. However, to be consistent with the ordinance and past decisions the side setback would need to be 10 R. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, THE VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TEN FEET IN THE R-2 DISTRICT. THIS DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT A HARDSHIP WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED. Motion passed unanimously. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the Monticello School District has requested approval of their request to allow public schools as interim use in the 1.1 District, and the issuance of such a permit for an existing building at 1248 Oakwood Drive East. The school district proposes to occupy an existing 4,800 square foot, two story industrial building between the H -Window building and Simonson Lumber. The proposed use will be an alternative school program for Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97 students identified by the district for more individualized treatment. The district has indicated that the program will begin the school year with approximately 30-60 students, and is expected to expand to 60 or more students as the year goes on. There are two primary issues for the city to consider with this request. First is the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the school use in the industrial district. Second is the district's application for an interim use permit allowing occupancy for this school year. Proposed Conditions to interim use permit. 1. The interim use permit will terminate on August 31, 1998. Extension of the use of the subject property for public school purposes beyond the termination date may only be granted through reapplication to the City. 2. The District agrees to stripe the existing parking lot in a way which maximized the paved area for efficient parking supply and circulation. 3. The District agrees to expand parking area at the direction of the City. The City will direct expanded parking based on the City's observation of parking demand which causes the use of on -street parking at any time. 4. The use of the subject property will be for altemative classroom use during normal school hours only, and not for any other use. 6. The District may occupy the building during remodeling only at the direction and under conditions identified by the building official. 6. The district shall make every effort to avoid permanent changes to the building which, in the opinion of the Building Official, would not be characteristic of an industrial use. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Shelly Johnson, consultant for the Monticello High School, explained this program was started while he was the superintendent and stated there will be room in the now high school in approximately two years. The Assistant Principal, Pam Ringstad, has made extensive efforts to find available space to continue this program. Many communities have facilities that are converted for this use. The Commissions inquired as to the ages of the students attending this school because of the traffic on Oakwood Drive, if school buses would be trying to enter the parking lot, and if major changes were Lwin.- ==dc to iLe buiidrng. Paged 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97 Mr. Johnson stated the students are high school age and because of this many will be driving. If school transportation is used it will be a van not a bus. The school is only leasing the space for the alternative learning program not purchasing the building. The remodeling will not prohibit this building from being an industrial office in the future; the structure will not be changed. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING INTERIM USES IN THE I-1 ZONE. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT. Motion passed unanimously. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SCHOOL USES AS INTERIM USES IN THE I-1 ZONING DISTRICT. MOTION BASED ONT HE FINDING IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNERS REPORT Motion passed unanimously. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, THE ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO THE MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT TO OPERATE AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM AT 1248 OAKWOOD DRIVE E. SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CITY'S LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES OF ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, DUE TO THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE PERMIT, AND THE MINIMAL ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY: 1. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT WILL TERMINATE ON AUGUST 31, 1998. EXTENSION OF THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES BEYOND THE TERMINATION DATE MAY ONLY BE GRANTED THROUGH REAPPLICATION TO THE CITY. 2. THE DISTRICT AGREES TO STRIPE THE EXISTING PARKING LOT IN A WAY WHICH MAXIMIZED THE PAVED AREA FOR EFFICIENT PARKING SUPPLY AND CIRCULATION. 3. THE DISTRICT AGREES TO EXPAND THE PARKING AREA AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY. THE CITY WILL DIRECT EXPANDED PARKING BASED ON THE CITYS OBSERVATION OF PARKING DEMAND WHICH CAUSES THE U4F (1F ON -STREET P.1 1UNG AT ANY TIME. 4. THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE FOR Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97 ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM USE DURING NORMAL SCHOOL HOURS ONLY, AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER USE. THE DISTRICT MAY OCCUPY THE BUILDING DURING REMODELING ONLY AT THE DIRECTION, AND UNDER CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE DISTRICT SHALL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO AVOID PERMANENT CHANGES TO THE BUILDING WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WOULD NOT BE CHARACTERISTIC OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE. MOTION BASED ONT HE FINDING IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNERS REPORT. Motion passed unanimously. Shelly Johnson requested the conditions be mailed to him. 10. nihlqr.Hpsarinir..Vnnigitipratinnnfanamendrnent allowing sin a : n body ehnn 'n a R-3 r�e`Ap In �c�nt_ .iohn ,io noon Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, reported the Planning Commission is being asked to continue the public hearing on this matter at the next meeting. There was added information that was not published in the paper. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. Motion passed unanimously. ::: \! 1 W lkw I I'm. 111. 11114 M. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported in the spring of 1996, the City initiated a study of the revitalization of its downtown area through its HRA and Monticello Community Partners, a community based interest group. This study included a market research component, a planning and design component, and implementation strategies. For the purpose of this analysis, the Planning Commission and City council aro asked to review the compatibility of the MCP Plan with the current Comprehensive Plan, and consider changes if conflicts are found. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dick Frio inquired where the MCP board stands. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/2/97 Brad Barger, Chairman of the HRA, stated that the HRA delegated the downtown area plan to the MCP. The HRA did approve the plan at the last meeting and the copies of the minutes were provided to the Commissioners. Rita Ulrich, MCP Director, stated the MCP Board is in support of the referendum. The public hearing was closed. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ADOPTION OF THE MCP PLAN. Motion passed unanimously. 11: r:nl :11 : 1 1 1 I. ,;1 1 ',1 1 1 /1, 5 1. I '111 1 1r7m. nirm-nmwim 1 : 1 1 AI :./ • 1 yl J,^11 Jeff ONeill reported that items 12 and 13 are scheduled for review at the Planning Commission/IDC/City Council meetings scheduled for September 29, 1997, which means the public hearing should be continued to the regular meeting in October. After a short discussion, DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE REGULAR MEETING IN OCTOBER, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Added items. Jeff ONeill reported the moratorium on building in the downtown/riverfront area runs out in November. - The Planning Commission will either need to call for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to match the comprehensive plan or extend the moratorium. Steve Grittman stated the public hearing can be called for at the next meeting and conducted at the November meeting. B. National Guard Training/Community Center - Jeff ONeill gave a brief update that the task force was still meeting and preliminary decisions on location, funding, and uses will be decided by the and of September. Page 7 (3 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97 C. Planning Commission representative on the MCP board. - Jeff O'Neill inquired if a Commissioner would volunteered to represent the Planning Commission on the MCP Board. O'Neill has represented the commission over the last year and it is time to rotate. Rod Dragsten agreed to 611 this position. D. Budget -Jeff informed the Planning Commission that budget workshops were being scheduled for the Council. The Planning Department will be requesting a planning technician and the building department is requesting help with code enforcement. 15. AdioBmmpn . RICHARD CARISON MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. Wanda Kraemer - Development Services Technician Pegs 8 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 5• Considerationofan Volcatlon for a C orotaot to be known as Klein Fan= Eat QWmkMnnA (NAC) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND 1. Klein Farms Estates 2nd Addition Townhomes ESK Development has been considering development of Kleln Fauns Estates Second Addition, a townhome development of 77 units between the Klein Farms single family went and the Oakwood Ir>dustrtal Park The last action taken on this item was to table until the Plennh Commission's October mea ft pending a revision of the proposal by the developer. In its review, staff had armed that the proposed density was too high, and that there were a number of ko=icnal issues related to the density, which needed to be addressed. To date, the developer has not revisad its proposal, nor requested further consideration. As a result, the Planning Commission should take action on the West request at its October meeting to comply with state law regarding time limits for review of zoning and subdivision requests. 2. Citizen Petitioned Rezoning of the Klein Farms R -PUD A related Issue involves the land between the Klein Farms single family development and Oakwood Drive, zoned R -PUD. This land was pan of the original development scheme for the area, platted as an &-dot pending later re-pletvng and development There has been IACs discussion as to the ultimate use or density of this was during the development of the rest of the Klein Farms project. A number of residents of the Klein Farms single family development have requested that the Planning Commission Initiate a rezoning of this land to preclude higher density residential development. From a technical standpoint the CRY Is under a devefoprment comb with the developer which Includes a clause ensuring that Camprolmnsive Plan and Zoning Ordinance do will not affaell the develoWs rlpids In the sut4ect land for three yearn from the date of the egreemet. This Is a standard clause in the Citye development contracts which hops to protect the understanding of the project at its inception. Therefore, the City is current unable to effecl a reconing of the tend In questlon. From a land use perspective, the use and density of this parcel have been expected by eteB to be higher than neighboring reaidential devabpment This expectation is In part to create a bansitbrt to the land uses west of Oakwood Drive. currently tonna' BC, Business Campus. As noted above, the eventual dw" and design of this area is still &Meet to consideration. Any development of the land will require both Plarrlad Unit Development and Prollmhary Plat public hearings. Therefore, Interested citizens will have an Planning Commieeion Agenda - 10/7/97 oppommity to pantipate in the conslderatim of that protect. Dwhdc rt 1. Cwa dwabm of tha Corv2W tel Use Permit fora Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat for Klein Fauns Estates 2nd Addition, a 77 unit townhome development. Altertt&M 1. Approve the PUD and Preliminary Plat as presented by the developer. )dims- Approval of the project should be accompanied by findings which support the City's action. Sugpested fndinps may h olude: (1) The proposed project meets the land use guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The proposed project will have Impacts wftKoh are primarily h do, l private Issues, and will minanme impacts on the public services and Ldittes setvhtp the site. Artarnatlys Deny the PUD and PreAmh eery Plat as presented by the developer. Findjpa. Denial of the project should be aooanpanled by findings which support the Ciys action Sugpested findhtpe may Include: (1) The proposed project exceeds the deraigr which is appropriate In an area shared by "le familyresldentlal street systems. (2) The proposed project htdudes design deficiencies which fall below fits taartdar So eVecied Ina Planned Unit Oevebpment, where design efmtdar I ars elevated over Vpical Ordinance mWmums, Including landscaping and visitor parking. (3) The proposed prFilm et Incudes detests wNdt fall below the performance standard requirements, inchAng bufferyard pl n*Vs. Decalon t Consideration d asking fors pubtio leering for a reonhq of fhe paroel lybV between Main Farms single family developmart and Oakwood Drive. AG4mallvis J. Motion to approve the call for the Public Hearfnp. Motion to deny caning for tits PubhC Hearing. Staff recommends denial of ft NO end PreHmhutry Plat for Klein Fauns Estates 2nd Planning Co=icaion Agenda - 10/7/97 Addbm Due to statutory Mw fimb on zmvV slid subdlV WM decWom we believe thW this moksO r1 is no brlger a; F ; 'ate for tabj% Moraom. the k t d design Oo Vujos to exhibit d 1f!,,:, .'t„ which mains it bmggxoprlete for approval Further, stag raeommends that the Ptalmtrg Commission not call for a pWft hearing on the rumth g of the R4"UD IwW to the west. No development epplieatbrl has been received on this pw*K and the City is still under the d:PgO= of the devebpment contract which produce dmrlpes h the Zoning ObctirG this pwceL Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 6. SQLM Club. (NAC) Tom.• ,.��✓ /,.p.dP,:.e A R EER NCE AND BACKGROUND o { 4 un.t's Ac«. S NoN�S The Monticello Country Club has requested consideration of a rezoning of a portion of their property which would allow a 14 unit townhouse project a4acent to the golf couree. The sloe in question is located sojecent to the entrance drive to the clubhouse, and would require the relocation of an existing maintenance shed. This report Is intended to review Ow rezoning only. Pending City action on the zoning, action could be takers at a future meeflrtg with regard to the plat and Planned Unit Development which would be necessary to accommodate the project as proposed. Rezonings are amendments to the Zoning Map, and are evaluated with the following considerations: 1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The dharecter of the surrounding area. S. The demonstrated need for such use. The neighborhood adjacent to the area includes an eight unit townhouse prolect, known as Monticello Country Club Court, and a series of single famlly parcels known as Club View Terrace. The Comprehensive Plan for fhe ama calls for a corbuiatlon of the existing land use pattern. The existing townhouses are developed at a density of about 5.0 units per acre. The single family lots are each about 20,000 square feet In area. The proposed townhouse project would be at a density of about 7.0 units per erre. The townhouse style of development is not necessarily out of cfiareeter, although the density Is Now than the surrounding neighborhood. Of particular concern in reviewing the criteria listed above would be Number 3, doprecietion of the area. Both the townhouses and the single family homes are likely to depend on the view of the golf course for a portion of their perceived value. Although proximity to the course would not be changed under the ounan proposal, the views er*WW by the nelgnoarrng dwaiiinp w0irtl ba«p �".;.. �!y armed. !!!cret"rer. the ewe to the new townhouses Is proposed to be a prhrete driveway shared with the Golf Clubhouse. The only exposure to the public street would be the narrow driveway which currently serves the Clubhouse alone. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 In reviewing the proposal against the required aitena for amendmerda from the Zoning Ordinal . the character of the surrounding area is relatively low density reskwn ial, with a mix of single family and attached townhouse development. The townhouse styles proposed in the current application would be acceptable. however a lower density would be more in keeping with the current development *W as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, there is a significant Issue with regard to the Ordinance requirement that an amendment to the Zw1ng not depredate the area. On the reasonable assumption that view of the Golf Course Is an important component of the value of the ousting dwellings, allmM tho project in the area proposed would Interfere with the view, and thus the values, of the area This Issue would disqualify the proposal for consideration for rezoning. Allemative 1. Approve the Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate the development of a townhouse Planted Unit Dewelopatent as proposed by the Monticello Country Club. F4odings. A decision to approve the proposed rezoning should be supported by dear findings of fad Suggested findings would include the following: (1) The proposed zoning is consistent with land uses in the area. (2) The proposed zoning would result in development which is needed in the community. (3) The proposed zoning Is not likely to depreciate the area In which It Is located. Alternative 2 Oony the Rezoning from R-1 to R-2. Findings. A decision to deny the proposed rezoning should be supported by elm findings of fad Suggested findtngs would induce the following: (1) The location of the proposed rezoning would tend to depreciate vsk ms of the neighboring properties sit= It would Interfere with the views which are Important of those values. (2) The rezoning could result In a dovelaprnent which W more dense than that eneotueped by the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commleelon Agenda - 10/7/97 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION � C�JJAO StO does not J approval of the proposed retorting. Although the general land use type arta budcruV We would not cor iid with other area lard was, the location of the proposed developmw>t would Interfere with the views of the nelphborhwd. It is a reasonable asswnptlon that those views are an kMw M component of value In he particular case. If the Country Chub can find other land in the area which Is semoeftle and mbdr ftn this Interference, a rezoning may be appropriate, presuming a oompatible'* density pattern. Eudtibit A. Zoning Map of Area Exhibit B. Proposed Site Plan UVL+ COURSE �� I Zo%rn%Map ~ -" MVeap NNW Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 DConsideration of a conditional use permit to allow 11 the establishment of an autobody repair shog_pnd accessogf outdoor storage area within a B-3. Al Highway Business Zoning DisMet 21 a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with adiacent autobody shop), and T,,_ 'hn minlim"m 20AWOE-mar John Johnson. (NAC) Background. Mr. John Johnson has submitted a request to construct an autobody repair facility upon a 14,650 square foot parcel of land located south of Interstate 94 and west of Sandberg Road. To accommodate the request, the fotlowing approvals are necessary: Conditional use permit to allow the establishment of an autobody repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage) within a B-3, Highway Business District. Planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (by an adjacent autobody repair facility). 3. Variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Conditional Use Permit Review CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello is provided a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of its citizens. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors: 1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is pi opueed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 Applicable B-3 District provisions list autobody repair and accessory outdoor storage as conditional uses subject to various performance related conditions. Provided all performance are satisfied, it is believed the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the subject property. Planned Unit Development. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit B), the applicant is proposing to share an outdoor storage area with an adjacent autobody shop to the north (also owned by the applicant). To accommodate this 'shared use' arrangement, the processing of a planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) is necessary. The PUD process is intended to allow certain design flexibilities in order to provide a more desirable development product. Aside from the referenced outdoor storage area, the PUD may also accommodate a shared parking arrangement and associated parking lot setback flexibility. Lot Requirements. The B-3 Zoning District does not impose a minimum lot size requirement. The ordinance does, however, stipulate that lots within B-3 Districts must be not less than 100 feet in width. At ± 110 feet in width (measured at front setback), the site in question exceeds minimum lot width requirements. Setbacks. With the exception of the rear yard setback, the proposed autobody shop complies with applicable B-3 District setback requirements as shown below: Required Setback Proposed Setback Front Yard 30 feet 47 feet Side Yard 10 feet 17 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 19 feet To accommodate the proposed rear yard setback, the applicant has requested approval of a variance. This item will be addressed in a latter section of this report. Off -Street Parking. According to the zoning ordinance, automobile repair facilities must provide 8 off-street parking spaces plus 1 space for each 800 square feet over 1,000 square feet. Thus, the proposed autobody shop must provide a total of 11 off-street Darkinq spaces. As shown on the submitted site plan, a total of 7 off-street parking spaces have been proposed. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to comply with applicable off-street parking supply requirements. As a means of maximizing land Planning Comiesion Agenda - 10/7/97 area devoted to off-street parking, a shared access and parking arrangement should be considered. Attached Exhibit C graphically illustrates an alternative parking arrangement which meets the referenced off-street parking requirement. Outdoor Storage. As noted previously, the applicant is proposing to share an outdoor storage area with an existing autobody shop located to the north of the subject site (also owned by the applicant). ilia the PUD, such arrangement may be considered acceptable. Issues related to the possible ramifications of a future property sale on the shared use arrangement should be subject to comment by the City Attorney and stipulated in the PUD agreement. The ordinance states that the vehicle storage area associated with an autobody shop must be limited to 50% of the area of the autobody shop. Assuming the entire outdoor storage area is to be devoted to vehicle storage, the outdoor storage area has been found to comprise ± 75 percent of the area of the principal building. Accordingly, the vehicle storage area should be reduced to 50% of the area of the principal building. In large part, the configuration of the proposed outdoor storage area prompts the need for the requested principal building setback variance. To avoid the need for such variance, consideration should be given to reconfiguring the outdoor storage area in a manner similar to that graphically illustrated upon attached Exhibit C. Screening. According to the ordinance, outdoor storage areas must be fenced and screened from view of residential uses and public rights-of-way. As a result, the outdoor storage area must be specifically screened from Marvin Road to the west and Sandberg Road to the east. The ordinance also states that 'vehicle storage areas' must be minimally screened by a 6 foot high 100 percent opaque fence which is designed to blend with the autobody shop and constructed of materials treated to resist discoloration. Surfacing. As a condition of CUP approval, outdoor vehicle storage areas associated with autobody shops must be surfaced in asphalt or concrete. Building Materials. According to the ordinance, the advertising wall (of an autobody shop) which faces the public right-of-way must consist of not more than 50% metal. The ordinance further states that the secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public right-of- way must utilize a combination of colors or materials that break up the monotony of a single color flat surface. As a condition of CUP approval, the autobody shop must comply with applicable building material requirements. Lighting. AS d c:uiidiiiui ur CUP approval, all ax,crior light;ra ~Licit be hccdcd:rd c: directed such that light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all signage must comply with applicable provision of the ordinance. Loading. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. Variance Review Variance Review Criteria. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance further states that a finding of non -economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. In review of the preceding variance evaluation criteria, it is believed that non -economic hardship (unique to the subject property) does not exist to warrant approval of the requested variance. As an alternative to the request for variance, a repositioning or downsizing of the building should be considered. An alternative building `positioning' which complies with B-3 setback requirements is illustrated upon attached Exhibit C. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS DECISION ONE: 1. Conditional Use Permit A. Conditional use permit approval as per the site plan depicted upon attached Exhibit B. Motion to approve a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow an autobody repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage) witnin a Fra Zoning Dish ik;l, and shared use of or. cutdcor storage, ares per the conditions outlined in Exhibit D. (1) Findings. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 (a) The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in A. keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and planned unit development. (c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. (d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. (e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. B. Conditional use permit approval as per the site plan depicted upon attached Exhibit C. Motion to approve a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow an auto body repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage) within a B-3 Zoning District and shared use of an outdoor storage area per (�o the conditions outlined in Exhibit D. (t) Findings. (a) The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and planned unit development. (c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. (d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and ivading as outlined herein. (e) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 01 Planning Co®iaeion Agenda - 10/7/97 C. Conditional Use Permit Denial. Motion to deny a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow an auto body repair facility (with accessory + outdoor storage) within a B-3 Zoning District and shared use of an outdoor storage area. (1) Findings. (a) The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and planned unit development regulations. (b) The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. DECISION TWO: 10'0 pC . N. Alb AffI;ca , 1. Variance — O a n: a d A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback requirement imposed in the B-3 Zoning District. (1) Findings (a) Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in nay other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. (b) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the . car= rcquos la uan led. 12 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback requirement imposed in the B-3 District. (t) Findings (a) Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. (b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. C. RECOMMENDATION Based an the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested planned unit development conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed. It is further our opinion that ran a =comic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. Thus, we recommend denial of the variance request. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Site Plan Alternative Exhibit D - Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit Conditions 191.07 - 87.18 C 13 Ell- NIG AY NO. I• : ISN: 71 PL tS SITE • � g o" I � ` 4�P `. - ------------- 141 • '� _ �' Gj8 rr I I � i A0, EXHUHT A - SITE LOCATIOI 7-1 EXMBjy SITE PLAN 1-2. S 8�80 J12, - r 141.07 LIAC A \ \ -9,tc Q - - - ------- GO-59*56, EXMBjy SITE PLAN 1-2. 1 2rt15'('iN j� Q4APED r -m 0 r �ML. JLV t4r EXHIMT C - SITE PIAN ALTERNATIVE "t-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS (a) The submitted site plan is modified to comply with applicable off-street parking requirements (11 spaces required). (b) Consideration is given to consolidating the parking lots of the subject site and adjacent northerly site in a manner similar to that illustrated upon Exhibit C. (c) The City Attorney provide comment and recommendation in regard to issues associated with possible future sale of the subject site or adjacent northerly property. (d) The outdoor storage area is reduced in size to not more than 50 percent of the area of the principal building. (e) The outdoor vehicle storage area is minimally screened by a six foot high, 100 percent opaque fence which is designed to blend with the auto body shop and which is constructed of materials treated to resist discoloration. (i) The outdoor vehicle storage area is surfaced in asphalt or concrete. i `. (g) Exterior finish materials of the body shop comply with applicable ordinance requirements. (h) All exterior lighting Is hooded end directed such that the light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or ne, ,!,oring residences. (i) All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the ordinance. (j) The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. (J() 0.-AVdP S.,teK& F44..t1 M..• 6a re:,.l—FcJ a ton0 M.fv1 , �•sdt S -.cit o 1 A u+* Bodb 5 466, e EXHIBIT D 1.4 Planning Co®ission Agenda - 10/7/97 Consideration of: I a conditional use permit to allow open/outdoor storage. sale and service and automobile (recreational vehicle) repair within a 0-3 Zgnina District and 21 a varianee from the minimum five foot setback Imposed upgn parking areas associated with commercial uses. Applicant. Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of Monticello RV Center. Inc. (NAC) Background. Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of Monticello RV Center Inc. have submitted a request to establish a recreational vehicle center upon a ± 4.3 acre parcel of land located north of Interstate 94 and west of Elm Street (former Rolling Wheels Go -Cart and mini -golf site). The proposed RV center would involve the sale, rental, service of recreational vehicles and enclosed utility trailers, sales and installation of RV towing accessories and the seasonal storage of recreational vehicles. To accommodate the proposed use, the following approvals are necessary: Conditional use permit to allow the following activities in a B-3 Zoning District. Open/outdoor storage Open/outdoor sale/service Minor automobile (recreational vehicle) repair. Variance to allow off-street parking within five feet of a lot line. Conditional Use Permit Review: Site Modifications. As noted previously, the site in question was previously occupied by Rolling Wheels Go -Cart and Mini -Golf. It is the applicant's intent to convert the former mini -golf course to a product display area and the former go-cart track to an outdoor storage area. It is further the intent of the applicants to construct a 3,900 square foot addition (65'x 6a) to the existing 1,950 square foot building (65'x 39) which presently exists on site. CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the Ci r"cil to ggainn rlimnnainns to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello is provided a reasonable degree of discretion In determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of its citizens. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors: 14 Planning Co®ission Agenda - 10/7/97 Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. While physical characteristics of the site will change as a result of the proposed use, the proposed RV Center use may in fact lessen compatibility concems of the previous Go -Cart use (i.e., noise). In this regard, it is believed that the RV Center can compatibly exist on the subject property, provided all applicable performance standards are met. Screening. According to the ordinance, all outdoor storage areas must be screened from view of abutting residential zoning districts and public rights-of-way. Additionally, outdoor sales areas must be screened from abutting residential districts. Considering that the site in question is bounded on the north by an R-3 Zoning District and on the south by a public right-of-way (1-94), screening is of particular relevance. While the outdoor storage and area is fenced (via chain link), a determination must be made that the fence provides an adequate visual screen and whether the City's buffer yard requirements have been satisfied. It should be particularly noted that chain link fence with slats does not constitute an acceptable screening solution. According to the ordinance, commercial uses which abut high density residential uses must provide a 20 foot wide landscape yard. Within such yard, a minimum of 80 plantings per 100 feet of property line must be provided. With the site's northern border measuring 627 feet in length, a total of 499 plants must be provided. This number may, however, be reduced to 250 plans (50 percent) in recognition of the site's northerly fence and may be reduced further if existing trees or vegetation exists within the 20 foot landscape yard. Landscaping. In addition to the forementioned screening requirements, a landscape plan must be submitted for review. The plan should specify the location, type and size of all proposed site plantings. Surfacing. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the outdoor sales area is to be surfaced in grass. Likewise, the proposed crush rock surfacing material proposed in the outdoor sales area complies with applicable ordinance requirements. To clearly delineate the outdoor sales area, however, it is suggested that the crushed rock be contained by curbing, edging or an elevational change (lower) from bordering off-street parking areas as deemed appropriate by the City Building Official. Lighting. Within the outdoor storage and sales area, all lighting must be hooded and so directed such that light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences. I - Planning Co=ieeion Agenda - 10/7/97 Off -Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific off-street parking standard for outdoor sales and storage lots. For reference purposes, the following standards as provided in an American Planning Association document titled Off -Street Parking Requirements are considered applicable. Use Ratio Required Spaces Indoor Sales Display 1 Space Per 600 Square Feet 2 (1,300 sq.ft.) Outdoor Sales Display 1 Space Per 2,000 Square 14 (28,400 sq.ft.) Feet Outdoor Storage- 1 Per Employee on Largest 4 (127,250 sq.ft.) Shift Auto (RV) Repair— 8 Spaces Plus 1 Space for 10 (2,600 sq.ft.) Each 800 Square Feet over 1,000 square feet TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 30 • Includes service department staging area '• Standard per Monticello Zoning Ordinance While it appears that ample area exists to satisfy applicable off-street parking requirements, the site plan should be modified to illustrate individual parking stalls including those to be devoted to use by the handicapped (1 per 25 spaces required). Recreational Vehicle Repair. As noted previously, it is the applicants intent to repair and service recreational vehicles on site. Technically, such use qualifies as'auto repair -minor" and may be accommodated only via approval of a conditional use permit. Noise. The majority of issues associated with recreational vehicle repair have been previously addressed. The ordinance does, however, stipulate that provisions must be made to control and reduce noise associated with automobile repair facilities. This stipulation will be made a condition of CUP approval. Lot Rcquircmentts. According to the ordinance, auto repair facilities must satisfy the following minimum lot requirements: Lot Area 22,5D0 square feet Lot Width 130feet Lot Depth 150 feet 16 Planning Ca®iesion Agenda - 10/7/97 At ± 4.3 acres in size, the subject site significantly exceeds minimum area requirements. While the subject property is provided only 100 feet of street frontage (at the Elm Street property line), it technically meets applicable lot width requirements as 200 feet of width is provided at the building setback line. Builoting Addition. It is the applicant's intent to construct a 3,900 square foot addition to While �( the existing 1,950 square foot structure which presently exists on site. a schematic perspective of the proposed building addition has been submitted (see Exhibit C), the building's height and exterior finish materials have not been specified. As a condition of CUP approval, the building height and exterior finish materials must comply with applicable l� ordinance requirements. Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage. t As a condition of CUP approval, all signage must comply with applicable provision of the 1 ordinance. (' o Loading. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. Variance Review Variance Review Criteria. According to the ordinance, all off-street parking areas associated with commercial uses must have a perimeter curb barrier not closer than five feet to any lot line. As shown on the submitted site plan, it is the applicant's intent to extend the RV Center's off-street parking to the site's northern boundaries (represents a pre-existing condition). Section 23.3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion it the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance furthcr states that a finding of rron-economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. The applicant's request for variance is unique in that it represonts a pre-existing non- conforming situation. Via the CUP, the City has the ability to require a five foot parking area setback (in conformance with ordinance requirements). Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 In consideration of the variance request, it is believed a case can be made both for approval and denial. On the one hand, the existing parking lot may be considered to have legal grandfather rights and does not negatively impact adjacent properties. On the other hand, there has been no demonstration of non -economic hardship to warrant approval of the variance. While it is acknowledged that the parking lot represents a pre-existing condition, it is the opinion of our office that the variance evaluation criteria has not been satisfied and that the City should, when opportunities exist, attempt to adhere to its present performance standards. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS DECISION ONE: 1. Conditional Use Permit A. Conditional Use Permit Approval. Motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow open/outdoor storage, sales and service, and minor automobile (recreational vehicle) repair in a B-3 Zoning District per the conditions outlined in Exhibit D. 1. Findings_ (a) The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of i the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. (c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. (e) The proposed project shall not imporo any undue burden upon public facilities and services. B. Conditional Use Permit Denial. Motion to deny a conditional use permit to allow openloutdoor storage, sales and service; and minor automobile (recreational vehicle) repair in a B-3 Zoning District. 16 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 (1) Findings ' (a) The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (b) The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. DECISION TWO: CL4 AJQ v 1. Variance Pr� ��\o,.�� a.\o,^,(-W*" : J� a po �e A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance to allow an off-street parking area (associated with a commercial use) within five feet of a lot line. 1. Findings (a) The request for variance responds to a pre-existing site condition. (b) Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. (c) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. 19 Planning Commieeion Agenda - 10/7/97 B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance to allow an off-street parking area (associated with a commercial use) within five feet of a lot line. (1) Findings (a) Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. (b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. C. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office believes the proposed use is appropriate for the site in question and recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed upon Exhibit D. While it is recognized that the site's parking lot represents a pre-existing condition, it is our opinion that non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested setback variance. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Building Floor Plan/Perspective Exhibit D - Conditional Use Permit Conditions 191.07 - 9720 20 .� ' s' '�.- "'•-+� ..•r-,�•,c �1,,y�.�:�;.�• �. ,. �(r._r t'�.: t 3Y.!Ji 4:-`wf:at`�o�-•--•�.,.,{ p (t't'1•r:('.•=-.ry`t'7+'.•.�." �` PA + '��' ��• ��,,,•�Tir„�^ ~% �``,� ij �. `„•".i�::,j`i' . r � q%•if; 'i, .:. Ln"r'`+i• t�t •: C - O./'„ �.,� �1, I �!• rel%l�l �.� GOLF COv ti O se .. '1'. �"� \ 2 ...•t :c :.I 1• � ��.m �iY �� _ '1 ll.._, %IY��i� .. sill f HIGHWAY •1 ••t'" ' g�iE �iPOPO ��.a Ct�NG�-S. woa{a uua o. of o -•� Oil i4 �lj m•eo• 6 2461 PrtaDucr=�i�Pm y t Ad LI CD 00- p '7 O�� d.1� � - •1 e a.�erM .....eww..r \ •\ +nn• .... wn wrw . O ..a.. �r••o...a ,�.�/lid.✓ Y'o �UIJ Gf.VfO.7fv Sna�rvG .6,0.&A Aib& SaevlcG -hC07! CAUL uca Cvsror,en ApA& V*� PdvG*,o Srt� /.cr'an� //D/ Ems. , Snpr I C_I444I _ — —« 30� ��u-rwv w� EXHIBIT C - BWLOINO FLOOR PLANMERSPECTIVE 9-3 nve1 (1)14;-o dLc,. Nb'r �9) o) R-40 69) 4 61H DAs — of Ro u&,v 1,,j CIM OBS �I 1� 4D770tiJ7/ a 6. 3 D.v Jk5Uwrwv s•rloAeK. f 3BaJ aa4+ -f>XTlau (P) STEES Aev-C- S� 1 FLAG 0400e Lb) Anti FivAmv (o SGA &A .. ove'e. .0 "g;- a (a) W, oG G) S rows+Fd 0&A0Arv4 4A—( aA6'L r bt Aosr /IQ, C�'Y� QNE61RiOc!d /.�.nGQ�o.e 4tiCc' EXHIBIT C - BWLOINO FLOOR PLANMERSPECTIVE 9-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS (1) All outdoor storage and sales areas are screened from view of abutting residential zoning districts and public rights-of-way in accordance with applicable City screening requirements including a 20 foot landscape yard along the site's northern boundary. (2) A landscape plan is submitted which identifies the location, type and size of all site plantings. (3) The crushed rock surfacing of the outdoor sales area is contained by curbing, edging or an elevational change (lower) from the bordering off-street parking areas as deemed appropriate by the City Building Official. (4) All exterior lighting is hooded and directed such that the light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences. (5) The site plan is revised to illustrate individual parking stalls (including those devoted to the handicapped). (6) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise associated with the proposed recreational vehicle repair activities. (7) The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding drainage issues. (8) The site's principal building comply with applicable height and building material requirements. (9) All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the ordinance. (10) The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. oj4:c'.at A-4,*10T•cV ♦o r_-%4rce 0. gakO C 0~f .1 ce w"tL% G• -d11 �40,%. 1 U 1 0 Pa,n 0.:+ on d; tions ExMtelT D S-4 Planning Co®ieaion Agenda - 10/7/97 9. Consideration of variances from the following: 11 Minimum five foot setback for off-street parking areas associated with commercial :as: 2) Minimum 40 foot driveway separation from Intersecting streets. Applicant. Roger Hedtke gn behalf of Smrder Druo. (NAC) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Background Mr. Roger Hedtke on behalf of Snyder Drug has requested a variance from the City's off-street parking area setbacks and driveway locational requirements. Such variances respond to the applicant's desire to construct a prescription pick-up lane at their existing drug store located north of 4th Street and east of Walnut Street. Specifically, the applicant wishes to reconfigure an existing, nonconforming driveway located south of the drug store such that the westemmost access to 41th Street terminate and a new access to Walnut Street be constructed. ted. The reconfigured drive lane would be used for the pick-up of prescriptions. The subject site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. Legal Non -Conformity. Section 3-5.D.9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance states that all off- street parking (associated with commercial uses) must have a perimeter curb no closer than five feet to any lot line. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit B), a 15 foot wide drive lane presently exists south of the Snyder Drug Store (used as a trash pick up lane). Recognizing the forementioned parking area setback requirement, the driveway technically exists as a legal non -conformity. While such driveway may continue to be utilized under the terns of its original approval, it is the objective of the City to someday bring non -conforming buildings, structures and uses, including the driveway in question, Into conformity. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 23.3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or In any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance further states that a finding of non -economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 Public Safety. As noted previously, a finding must be made that the granting of the variance will not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets or endanger the public safety. While the pre-existing driveway condition is recognized, the proposed use (drive-through facility) will escalate traffic volumes at the 4th Street/Walnut Street intersection. Of particular concern is the dispersement of vehicles approximately 25 feet from the referenced intersection. Such. access location presents safety concerns in regard to stacking space conflicts, vehicle visibility (right-hand turns from 4th Street) and disruption of pedestrian movements. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Pedestrian Orientation. The City's recently adopted Downtown Plan promotes the Central Business District as a pedestrian -oriented area of the community. Some question exists as to whether the allowance of accessory 'drive-through* activities associated with the drug store use is consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Plan. Hardship. As noted previously, the Ordinance stipulates that a finding of non -economic hardship, unique to the subject property, must be made to justify variance approval. While the drug store's location will not allow the proposed drive-through lane to comply with applicable parking area setbacks, such condition should not be construed to mean that the drug store is by right 'entitled' to a drive-through component. In this regard, it is the opinion of our office that there simply is not ample area along the building's south side to accommodate a drive-through facility. Therefore, we feel unique non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to justify variance approval. Trash Pick -Up. The existing service drive south of the drug store presently functions as e trash pick-up lane. While the service lane does not comply with current City setback regulations, traffic associated with such lane is minimal and has little impact upon area traffic. Should the City allow the requested drive-through facility, consideration should be given to relocating the drug store's trash handling area so as not to conflict with prescription pick-up maneuvers. DECISION: Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum five foot parking area setback (imposed upon commercial uses) and minimum 40 foot driveway separation from intersecting streets subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C. 22 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 1. Findings a. Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. b. The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum five foot parking area setback (imposed upon commercial uses) and minimum 40 foot separation from intersecting streets. 1. Findings. a. Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. b. Approval of the variance would increase congestion on public streets and endanger the public safety. C. The allowance of an accessory drive-through facility in the City's downtown area is discouraged by the City's Downtown Plan. C. RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested variance would endanger public safety, specifically upon the Walnut Street/4th Street intersection. It is further believed that hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. As a result, we recommend denial of the requested variance. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Variance Conditions 191.07 - 97.21 23 SCHOOL A * sm %. 001,00 00", CIA---, - -2w,� 4TH S TREE T vo EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN VARIANCE CONDITIONS (1) An elevation of the drug store's southern facade is submitted which illustrates proposed building alterations. (2) Consideration is given to relocating the uses trash receptacle so as not to conflict with prescription pick-up activities. (3) The westerly access to 4th Street terminate in accordance with the submitted site plan (including new sidewalk construction). (4) Any site signage associated with the drive-through facility comply with applicable City requirements. (5) The variety and size of proposed boulevard tree plantings are specified and subject to City approval. EX"161T C -3 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 10. Consideration of a variance from the 30 foot front yard setback imposed in R2 Zoning Districts, Applicant. Gerald Anderson. (NAC) Background. Mr. Gerald Anderson has requested approval of a variance from the City's 30 foot front yard setback requirement to accommodate an expansion of his existing attached garage located at 406 East River Street. Specifically, the applicant proposes to expand his existing single stall garage to include a second stall and lengthen the existing single stall (from 17 to 24 foot depth). The expanded garage is proposed to lie ± 19 feet from the subject property's front lot line. The residence currently ;ies ± 23 feet from !he front lot line and exists as a legal non- conformity. Legal Non -Conformity. The applicant's residence presently lies 23 feet from the East River Street right-of-way and exists as a legal non -conformity (30 foot setback required). The proposed garage expansion/addition would lie 19 feet from the adjacent street right-of- way. Section 3-1.J of the Zoning Ordinance states that alterations may be made to non- conforming residential dwelling units when such alterations will improve livability. The ordinance further states, however, that all setbacks associated with residential structure expansions must meet applicable R-1 District requirements. Setback Exceptions. Section 3-3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance provides setback flexibilities in instances where adjacent structures fail to meet minimum front yard setback requirements. Specifically the Ordinance allows front yard setbacks to be the 'average' of adjacent structures. While the residence to the west of the subject property exhibits a front yard setback of only 19 feet, the residence to the east exhibits a 37 foot front yard setback. Thus, the forementioned setback exception is not considered applicable to the subject property. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: A. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. B. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. C. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety D. Unreasonably diminish or Impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. i IL Planning Commission Agenda — 10/7/97 The ordinance further states that a finding of non -economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. Hardship. It is the applicant's contention that the proposed four foot front yard encroachment is necessary to accommodate the parking of two full size automobiles within the proposed two stall garage (existing single stall garage measures only 17 feet in depth) and minimize disruption to the interior of the home. While the proposed garage configuration is understandably to the applicant, there are alternative design options available which fully comply with the setback provisions of the ordinance. In this regard, we do not feel that unique, non -economic hardship has been demonstrated to warrant intensification of a currently non -conforming setback. Alternatives. As an alterative to the proposed garage configuration, the following options may wish to be considered: Rear Yard Detached Garage. The subject property holds ample rear yard area to accommodate the placement of a detached garage. Such alternative would be consistent with the conditions of other lots within the neighborhood induding the adjacent westerly property. Attached Garage at 23 Foot Sotbadk A second alternative may be to be construct an attached second garage stall at the 23 foot setback Such garage addition could be provided a depth of 24 feel Such addition would, however, require the removal of a laundry room window and retention of the 17 foot stall depth of the existing garage. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: DECISION: A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback imposed in R2 Zoning District to allow a 19 foot front yard setback. Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. 25 Planning Co®ieaion Agenda - 10/7/97 b. The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. C. The floor plan of the applicants residence presents a hardship in that significant alteration would be necessary to increase the existing garage's depth from 17 to ± 22 feet B. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback imposed in R-2 Zoning Districts to allow a 23 foot front yard setback. 1. Findings. a. Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. b. The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. C. The floor plan of the applicant's residence presents a hardship in that significant alteration would be necessary to increase the existing garage's depth from 17 to ± 22 feet. C. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback Imposed in R2 Zoning Districts. 1. Findings a. Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. b. The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied (as other alternatives exist to accommodate a two stall garage). 26 Planning C-168iOn Agenda - 10/7/97 It is the opinion of our office that genuine non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant and that the property in question can be put to reasonable use if the requested variance is to be denied (via other garage placement options). As a result, we recommend denial of the requested setback variance. Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Survey Exhibit C - Proposed Garage Addition 191.07-9724 27 r`-'• Hpp� Gruar+IC SOLE rN FEET \ \ I�,F9 S'j� 0 30 60 90 ]I EXHIBIT 0 - SITE SURVEY /o.-2. 6RaQV11C SCALE IN FEET �• \ \ ' -sl 0 30 60 90 �•: IP PROP)OSED GARAGE w.a • e .,., . A DOITION h 12.560.99 S0. FT. ` ! +o / Gi N. ss.o s o� .� I 7 7 6 / 7 EXMBIT C • PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION /0403 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 • , :re: 7;. 1 •1 •ll 1 • • .• 1 11.•1' IL°1• } I1.' 1:' IL', 11 .17.7, -1, 17 !,.. =1u �I •l'r 1 :l! 1 Il•Jn • •Ila II! Ifl •1•ru •I •111 .!-I 1 ' I 1 = IIIi 1: '1! II, -ill -•11 'll! •,1 =, 1111 t• •1. l!•:'. Il• -1 f' ' l= Il! .1!'.11.'! M -1. 1 7 •.: 1 1111:! • = •1 7 illi• fv i .IIl7- IP U T111 •11 :1!!44 11!1 f -tllll 11.. 11 I -1 r�l.l. =i 1: =w A. A. REFERENCE AND RACKGROLIND Background. Gould Brothers Chevrolet hes submitted plane to expand Its .existing automobile dealership structure located south of Interstate 94 and west of Marvin Road Specifically, the applicant is proposing various additions to its existing building which total 13,300 square feet in area Such additions will result in a building measuring 28,100 square feet In size. Rezoning Review: Rezoning Evaluation Criteria. As shown on Ex hlbd B, only the eastern one-quarter of the sut od alta is zoned Bim, the remaining three-quarters of the site (recently annexed) is meed A-0, Agricultural Open Space. To accommodate the proposed use, a rezoning of the western portion of the site to a B-3, Highway Business designation Is necessary. in consideration of rezoning requests, Section 22-1.D of the ardinance directs the Planning Commission to consider the following: Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area in which It Is proposed. The &,erecter of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. The Citys Comprehensive Plan (Land use Plan) suggests commarclal use of the sul*ct property. As a result, the proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Provided all applicable City performance standards ere met, the proposed use satisfies applicable zoning amendment evaluation criteria. Plannod Unit DevelopmentfComi tional Use Peri dt Review: Site Modiicatlons. As noted previously, the epplicard intends to experhd Its existing automobile dealership structure. Specifically at 7,700 square foot addition to the north end at 5,600 square foot addition to the south have been proposed. In conjunction with such building additions, the following have been proposed. 28 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 • Construction/dellneation of a customer parking area • Perimeter tree plantings. • Relocation of an outdoor fuel storage tank • Landscaping along the building's northern facade. CUP Review Criteria. To eccommnodate the proposed mbdure of site uses (outdoor storage and sales area and automobile body shop), the approval of a planned unit devolopment/conclitional use permit Is necessary. The purpose of the conditions] use permit pis is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello is provided a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitaWlity of oertein designated uses upon the general wafts, public health and safety of its citizens. Procedurally, the Plenrning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be be upon the same criteria utilized in the evaluation of rezoning requests (presented In previous section). Provided all applicable performance standards are met, the proposed use satisfies applicable CUP evaluation criteria Outdoor Storage. Screening requirements applicable to the site's outdoor storage area are dependent upon whether such storage area is accessory to the dealership's auto body repair shop. Assuming the outdoor storage area is to be used for vehicle storage, the area must comply with the following: The storage area not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the body shop. The storage area is screened via a six foot high, 100 percent opaque fence designed to bland with the body shop (principal building) and treated to resist discoloration. The storage area is surfaced In asphalt or oonaete paring. The site is not bounded by any residentially zoned property. As a result, screening of the outdoor sales area Is not required. Landscaping. As shown on the submitted alto plan, the applicant is proposing a mixture of six foot maple and pine trees (25 feet on center) along the site's eastern boundwy. A mixture of landscape shrubs has been proposed upon the site's northern boundary and directly north of the dealership building. The extreme southeast area of the site Is to be raWnod as green space. The proposed landscaping efforts are considered acceptable. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance roquhmente, the dealership's sales lot is to be surfaced In asphalt As mentioned previously, the vehicle storage encs must (as e condition of CUP approval) be surfaced in asphalt or concrete paving. 29 Planning CO=ieaion Agenda - 10/7/97 Ughtlrtg. Within the outdoor sales, outdoor storage areas, and off-atreet parking areas, all lighting must be hooded and so directed such that the light sours is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences. OffStreet Parking The Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific off-street parking standard for automobile dealerships. For reference purposes, the following standards as provided in an American Planning Association document titled OA -Street Parking Reguirements are, however, considered applicable. Use Ratio Indoor Saks Display 1 Space Per 800 Square Feel Outdoor Sales Display 1 Space Per 2,000 Square Feet Outdoor Storage' 1 Per Employee on largest StUB Auto (RM Repair' 8 Spaces Plus 1 Space for Each 800 Square Feet over 1,000 + feet • Standard per Monticello Zoning Ordinance To determine the required parking soppy of the proposed use, square footage summaries of the aforementioned uses must be provided. As shown on the submitted site plan, a specific oft -street parking area for customers has been proposed to the west of the site's principal structure. Specifically, a nine stall angled perkhv lot has been proposed To determine whether such lot design can be successfully integrated into the site's overall circulation system, vehicle drive lanes, parking locations, and service door locations should be delineated upon the site plan. As a condition of CUP approval, the aaftomer parking lot should be specifically delineated via curbing and striping. Additionally, handicap sWs should be Identified. A graphic example of a possible customer parking lot layout Is attached as Exhibit E. Building Matartats. While the site plan Identifies proposed building expansion areas, elevations depicting the design and materials of the proposed struchn addition should be stipulated. As o condition of PUD/CUP approval, the materials of the proposed structure additions must comply with applicable City building material requirements. Billboard Presently, an off -premise advertising sign (billboard) exists In the extreme northwest cot. a d the subject property. Bo=jse the City's Zoning Ordinance no longer allows the establishment d billboards, the sign in question technically exists as a legal tion -conformity. Amending to the Ordinance, all non -conforming advertWM signs must be removed or brought Into cortformRy within five years of notification (in writing). The Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 referenced advertising sign must be removed within five years of official approval of the requested PUD/CUP. Ciao TardL The submitted site plan Indicates that a gas tank located to the northwest of the dealership building Is to be relocated. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed gas tank location should be Identified on the site plan. Signage. The submitted site plan does not specify the type and location of site signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all signage must comply with applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Loading. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the site plan should be modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, the City Engineer should provide comment and recommendation on drainage related Issues Variance Review Vartanee Review Criteria. According to the Ordinance, all off-street parking areas associated with commercial uses must have a perimeter curb. It is the applicWs intent to utilize the site's existing parking lot 'as is' (without curbing). To accommodate this condition, the processing of a variance Is necessary. Section 23.3 of the ordnance states that in eotnslderaV requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably Increase the corgostlon It the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or Impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the indent of the ordinance. The Ordinance Anther states that a finding of hardship must be made and M the property In question cannot be put to reasonable use K the variance Is denled. Via the CUP, the City has the ability to require a perimeter sub around all off-street parking areas (in conformance with Ordinance requirements). The CiVe curbing requirement hes two primary pwpose& The fust is the management of atone water runoff, the second being the delinestion of ort -street perking areas. The applicant's roquoat for variance is unlquo In that it represents a pre-existing non -conforming situation. In consideration of ft variance request, It Is believed a case can be made both for approval end denial. On the one bland, the eudatlrlp parking lot may be considered to have legal partdfaUter rtghb and does not negativety Impact properties. On the other Planning Co®ission Agenda - 10/7/97 trend, two has been no demonstration of om hardship to warrant approval of the variance. While it Is acknowledged that the parking lot represents a pre-wdsting condition, it is the opinion of our office that the variance evaluation criteria has not been satisfied and that the City should, when oppoit<mities akar, amen, to adhere to lts present pertomtance standards. B- ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L DECISION ONE:p �c��.o-4 1. Rezoning. lie ca Z A Rezoning 4Fyroval. Motion to approve the rezoning of the property from A-0, AgdculturaVOom Space to B-3, Highway Business. I . Findings. (a) The proposed project is consistent with the spoil and intent of the Monticello Con nWorulve Plan goals and pollaes and to keeping with the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the peAormance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. (c) The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. (a) The proposed project shall not impose any undue burdoti upon public facilities and SWC03. S. Rezoning Denial. Motion to deny the rezoning of the property from A-0, AgricWtural Open Space to B-3, Highway Business. (1) ElndL= (a) The proposed use Is not consult with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehenstvo Plan and Zoning Ordivouve. (b) The proposed use Is likely to have an adverse impala upon surrounding properties. 32 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 DECISION TWO: 1. Planned Unit pevelopmenUConditional Use Permit. PC Rc C_o M -,.V -n CQ4+ "-7 A Plarmed unit developmentloonditional use permit approval. Motion to approve a planned unit devetwnenUwrldtional use permit to allow outdoor sales, outdoor storae. and auto body repair in a B-3 Zoning District subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit D. (1) Findj=. (a) The proposed project is wnsisterd with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan polls and policies and in keeping with the Intent of the ZonhV Ordinance. (b) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. (c) The proposed pro)ed will not have any adverse impacts as outlined In the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The proposed project shall provide adequate perldng and loading as outlined herein. (e) The proposed project shell not Impm any undue burden upon public facilities and services. B. Planned unit developmentloonditional use pwmlt denial. Motion to deny e planned unit developmentf onditional use permit to allow outdoor sales, outdoor storepe, and automobile body repair in a 83 Zoning District. (1) Elndittae. (a) The proposed use is not oonsistant with the spirit and intent of tho Monticello Compfahenstve Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (b) Tho proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrow-ding properties. DECISION THREE: 1. Variance aa-^ 33 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance to allow an off-etreet per" area (assodated with a commercial use) without perimeter curbing. 1. F_lGdl�i (a) The request for variance responds to a pre-e)dsting site condition. (b) Approval of the vanance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of IWd and air to adjacent PrOP". (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public setae. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neViborhood or In any other way be contrary to the Intent of this on:Wuv=. (c) The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use ff the variance request is denied B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance to allow an o8-strant perking area (associated with a commercial use) without perimeter curbing. (1) FindInan (a) Non -economic hardship has not bean c :, ,: to warrant approval of the requested variance. (b) The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is deviled. C. RECAMMFNDATION Basod on the praoading rovlow, our recommends approval of the regrwstod Planned unit developmenticonditional use permit subs to the condition listed upon F xhlbd D. While it is nowgrilzad that ft site's pwft bt rainurds a preeds" condition, it is our opinion that ner"conamic hardshty hes not boon. 6. , ,. .,,:,J to warrant approval of the requested curbing variance. s 34 Planning Commission 'Agenda - 10/7/97 F--d%M A - Site Location E)hbh 8 - Sfte SWVOY EAM C - Site Plan E*M 0 - Planned Unit Use Permit CandftWm EtiM E - Parking Lot Conoopt 191.07-0725 00� ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9XHW A - SnIt LOCATM U.-/ INTERSTATE 94 1 aMrrom oarre ---L1-4; 1 •, r• THE . n. � Y is.st 114 s 1s,1.. t• y 'Y.... -' r 1• ..�.+'rrrw•J L..�� •t� EYP •,� jY rte' -�- . w �.' y�� • Lh�� ,�� M • 10- ! 0, `' ��± � ,1�-• + s v low 11'Z aw r -ffmw-�;,r t��, -i'm ........... A-.iv— �` C. we OLO I . J.-3 I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS (1) The City approve the requested rezoning of the subject property from an A-0, Agricultural Open Space to a 53. Highway Buslnesa designation. (2) The outdoor vehicle storage area not exceed 50 percent of the area of the automobile body shop. (3) The outdoor storage area is soreenad visa six foot high, 100 percent opaque fence designed to blend with the principal building and treated to resist discoloration. (4) The outdoor vehicular storage area is surfaced in asphalt or eonmete paving. (5) The applicant submit information necessary to determine the amount of off-street parking required of the use. (6) The aIle plan is revised to illustrate individual offatreet parting stalls (in compl[am with Ordinance requirements) and vehicle drive lanes. m Off-stres t parking spaces Intended for customer parking are delineated via striping and perbroter curbing In a manner similar to that Illustrated upon attached Exhibit E. (B) Building elevations we submi tod which illustrate the desip of the proposed structure additions and specify finish materials (in compllance vNth Ordinance requirements). (9) The site's advertising sign (billboard) is removed within five yam of the date of PUD/CUP approval. (10) The site plan is revised to id& y the proposed location of the -relocated' gas lark (11) All site signage comply with applicable prorlslons of the Ordhanos. (12) The este plan Is revised to illustrate an off-streot loading space. (13) The City Engineer provide aorrimart and reoanmendstlon In regard to dralnege Issuos. <`tY� Lull `ro 6ai,el./liO ad' �ra.. Stf-boc�C let.ai�o�3 wit deve/vp--' exxw o /I4 OAKWOOD DRIVE POSSIBLE OVERFLOW AREA 11 mc I CUSTOMER 0//1 i- PARKING 01 10 TIT r . 4a EXHIBIT E - PARKING LOT CONCEPT # , TOTAL P.14 Planning Commission Agenda- 10/7/97 7`7 •III 111 = I•.1 1.' 1 11.= 1 ' 1 • J 1 a= 111 M•11 -111 ' 1 .'l• 1 • Il' •:1.:= 1 • •111: l-,• (:.• 111 •:l• :=ill.�i 11'� � 11• 1.!•I lll•:1111 11' • Il• •'�I11 III;= � •, I11,: I � A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Littre Mountain Feed has requested approval of the construction of a loading dock on the south side of its main building. The loading dock would be in violation of the setback adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad, and requires approval from the railroad for use of some of its right-of-way for access. Due to the mix of uses on this site (including office, retail, industrial, and warehousing), the most appropriate process is through the rezoning of the parcel to Planned Unit Development District. In the PUD District, the underlying Comprehensive Plan manages land use, but conceivably, any mix of land uses is possible. The use of PUD would also be important in this case to manage a staged series of site improvements to the property which includes a number non -conformities. These include uncontrolled site access, minimal landscaping and buttering, and lack of paving for either retail or industrial traffic. The PUD Zoning process allows the City to approve expansions to otherwise non -conforming land uses, and negotiate a staging of site improvements designed to bring the parcel into conformance. Lapdog. The first Issue involves the land use itself. The site lies north of the Burlington Northern tracks, west of Sunnyfresh. There are single family homes on the remainder of the block. The applicant has indicated that his long term goal is to Increase the retailing portion of the business (as well as the industrial aspects). The City needs to determine the long -tern acceptability of the use at the edge of the City's downtown area. The MCP Plan suggests that a mix of uses is desirable in the downtown area, particularly retailing and residential, although some Industrial use is expected to remain with Sunnyfresh. The current zoning is 1-2, the City's most Intensive Industrial district, The PUD zoning would infer a greater emphasis on the nonindustrial use of the site. Moreover, the feed and pet food aspect of the business is suggestive of a small town in an agriculturally based economy. As such, the use may be considered appropriate in Its current setting. Of concern would be the Impacts on the residential neighborhood which abuts the site. These impacts could be managed using the PUD permit process. Varian . Due to the configuration of the site and the nature of the business, the applicant has stated that the loading dock must be located on the south side of the building as proposed. This location is in violation of the required 30 foot setback adjacent to the Fifth Street right-of-way which contains the Burlington Northern tracks. Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of physical hardship due to the land in question. Presuming that a loading dock is a critical aspect of the continued use and expansion of the site, the Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 question would be whether a dock could be located on another portion of the site. The applicant has stated that other locations would not benefit the business. Moreover, other locations would likely Impact the residential areas to the north and west. PUD Permit. Under the Zoning Ordinance, a non -conforming use may not be expanded except to bring it into conformance with the standards in force at the time. The addition of the loading dock would quality as an expansion. Therefore, the applicant is required to upgrade the remainder of the site with the addition of paved parking and circulation areas, landscaping in all areas not required for circulation or buildings, and bufferyard treatments adjacent to the residential areas. The applicant has stated that the investment necessary to accommodate all of the paving and landscaping would be prohibitive. If the City believes the project is appropriate, it has the discretion to allow the phasing of Improvements under the PUD process. Some level of improvement should accompany any expansion. At the minimum, we would suggest paving of the current retail parking portion of the site, and paving of the loading area which will be uses by the trucks using the new loading dock. In addition, we would suggest an initial planting of bufferyard landscape materials on the north boundary to begin screening the activity from the residential areas. The applicant has suggested that future expansions will Include a new building on the west of the site, adjacent to Maple Street. The retailing activities will be relocated to the new building as this time. The applicant's investment in paving around the current retail building will not be wasted, since there will be a reuse of this area for processing and other industrial purposes. Decision 1. Rezoning of the site from 1-2 to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Alternative 1. Motion to approve the rezoning. Findings. The approval should be supported by findings which demonstrate the appropriateness of the new zoning district, including the following: (1) The PUD Zoning District will allow the City to best manage the Impacts of the proposed use in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The proposed uses are appropriate In the City's effort to redevelop its downtown area, as Identified In the MCP Plan. (3) The proposed zoning will not have adverse Impacts on the neighboring land uses. Alternative 2. Motion to deny the rezoning. Find►opg. A motion to deny should be supported by findings which demonstrate the rezoning's Incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, such as the following: Planning Commission Agenda - 1017/97 (1) Long term industrial use of the property is not compatible with the redevelopment of the downtown area. (2) The expansion of the activities on this site would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Decision 2. Issuance of a PUD Permit to the subject property, with staged site Improvements to match expansions of the business on the existing site. Alternative t _ Approval of the PUD Permit to allow the expansion of the loading0. dock, without concurrent site improvements. P.- Findings. Approval should be supported by appropriate findings, such as: (1) Expansion of the business is appropriate, given the proximity to Sunnyfresh. (2) The addition of the loading dock is an insignificant expansion, and should not key the need to provide other site improvements at this time. Alternative 2_ Approval of the PUD Permit to allow the expansion of the loading dock, with concurrent, staged site improvements. FindingB. Conditional approval should be supported by the following findings: (1) The PUD Permit process allows the City to manage the eventual conformance of the site to Ordinance standards. (2) Encouragement of business expansion in this location outweighs strict adherence to requirements of immediate full site Improvements. (3) Future Improvements can be required as the business continues to expand. Astern tive 3_ Denial of the PUD Permit. Finding . Denial should be supported by appropriate findings: (1) The PUD Permit Is an inadequate method to manage the Impacts of the site, and the proposed business expansion. Decision 9. Variance to permit the construction of a loading dorrlk within the required setback area adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad. Alternative 1 _ Approval of the proposed variance. ° Flndln• Approval of the variance should be supported by appropriate findings related to hardship and uniqueness, such as the following: 38 Planning Commission Agenda - 1117/97 (1) There are no feasible ahematives to loading dock location on the property. (2) The loading dock is reasonably necessary to permit the continued viability of the business in this location. (3) The proposed location of the dock will have the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Alternative 2. Denial of the proposed variance. Findings. Suggested findings supporting a denial of the variance would be as follows: (1) Expansion of the current use of this parcel is Inappropriate in the long term. (2) The construction of the loading dock in the proposed location does not meet the meaning of the term "hardship" due to the possibility of other dock locations. (3) The PUD Permit process will not adequately advance the City's interests in redevelopment of the downtown area, and therefore, the expansion of the business is inappropriate. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the land use is an appropriate use of the parcel, given the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the MCP Downtown Plan in particular. The PUD Pemdt process should allow the City to stage improvements to the site, without over- burdening the applicant with improvement costs early in his business development. Since Sunnyfresh is likely to be a long term industrial presence in this area, the eventual phasing In of additional retail on the Little Mountain Feed site would appear to be an appropriate objective for the City's land use regulation. As a result, we would recommend approval of the rezoning to PUD, approval of the variance to allow the loading dock, and the PUD Permit which allows the expansion, but requires paving In the areas of the loading dock and access, and the current retail customer area, as well as an initial bufferyard planting adjacent to the residential uses north of the current buildings. Exhibit A, Area Location Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibit C, Existing Zoning 39 SuTt E 10 all $8.w I, r w u'14• r /o 1 �`. I At.is Yf I it I �,r►� I I � I � I �h i ��•( i. I � J` .p rr M •Yt4V 'W Tl —+r+ r�' • 1 O Exhibit B Site Plan k. EP Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 h lg, Continued Public Hearing..Cmaideration of test �d man gime nd manta renaming IMC ib aineaa .ampa)g,)n_ning diaMi�he I- lA fight find asb4sal district A)- AmtlICant. Montleello P annia CoIDmindnn AND IN C Consideration of tent amendment°to thp business omnna district MMIshilons by eliminating the green Mace regnirement o taide of the atandand setb&Ck reanl_rementa A lirnnL Montiedlo Planning commisdon. (J.O.) Please see the attached report from City Planner Steve Grittman. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1997, pending review at a joint Planning Commisaion/IDC/HRA/City Council meeting on September 29. 40 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planr" Commission FROM: Stephan Grtttman DATE: August 26, 1997 RE Monticello - Zonatp Ordinance Amendment - BuWnese Campus District FILE NO: 191.06-97. A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The tnduairlal Development Cammatee has supposted that the Cly restbu"e the wrent ll Ness Campus DWM In an •lied to make the !omit within the Disstriet more atirective to development. The IOC has cortcUlled 00 the lack of U>dustrial development in the SC zoned areas Is aftrbAaWe. at least In part to both ft perception of the Disdrict as ksstrtendly to development and the reality of a conoem over buildable areas limited by the WndsmpdV regkd aments. Disbld Name This bssm may be apptaaMed in a number of ways. The tanoept behind this proposal Is to remove. or ager, the 'Business! part of the title to make the Olstrkx sound more industrial In nature. The options dWcuseed among staff and the IDC have bw Axded oltarVV the B -C to -1,7"; dwgtrtg 04 to 'M ", and sanumbertnp the ksment 1-1 and 1-2 DWIds to 1-2 and W, respectively, and a wingli gi the 04 District to "WK. The 1.3 option would be simple, but could bed to conkWon due to the fact that the Ordinance would establish Its most resbWve Distrlkt with the hiptteet number. The 41 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 opposRe Is more typical. Renumbering the other "It We would be more is keeping with the expected system. However, the reelassdb tion of this much lend with such similar zoning distriQ names could be eordusing for both property owners and City Staff. The MA option would also misorder of the dbMM by pftft the most restrictive di5b id between 1-1 and 1-2 I-Im ever, this option does represent the truest picture of the altered B C District a slightly changed 1-1 District. This Is because the land uses would change little from 1-1 to MA, and eoccepI for building materials, little dmmp would be seen in performance standards. The primary difference between disiricts would be the requirement in the MA that a of the building be Covered with a masonry material. Green Space Current 8-C District language requires a 30 peroent green apace reservation from every devebped parcel The IDC has proposed that this lenquage be removed. At the time of the adoption of the B -C. two was a concern that land in the City's inial areas would be underdeveloped, pmUoulaAy, in the areas exposed to the freeway. Since that time, the City has adopted more extensive I . , „'i ,, fecpA mane, pwboularty wBh the lxdferyard aclb anoe. As a result. it may be appropriate to consider dropping the percentage green space requirement, especially given the development pace in the industrial area. 9- ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Dechdon 1. Ordinance amendhg the title of the Business Campus District. e(, A`)a4te-- a e Altamathe1. Approve the renaming of the B -C. Business Campus District to 1-1 A. Industrial. Z Approve the renaming of the B.C. Business Campus DWWd to another name. AfleMative I Deny the renaming of the B -C, Business Campus Dlstrld. DwMon Z Ordinance amending to Busiess Campus District by dhahgtrhg the Lot Coverage raWamente reldi g to mbhimunn tarndempe area. ✓ACe!>�he9.I Distrix t. the D ge landarope area nom the � .,�Y9u AltemathffiZ, Approve the modillca n of the p A merhtage landscape eros within the Business Campus OWieL Alternative.3. Deny the modiNhatlah of the percentage 1, , I ,sae area. 42 M Planning Camiesion Agenda - 10/7/97 Staff wMeds the -I-IK name cWwe ff the City dwases to rename the Bushm Campus District. This Is primarty due to i. I.0 of Past 1Aning refarerm% and wiaW tg oo tmion when do M9 wsh developed property. The need tar the change would be based upon the rew. mertdam of the ln&s* al Development Committes. WM negerd tcP the par centege lendsoepe area, Staff is unsure that elltter iiia name of the district or the tandscape rc*raements have deterred developmeM .. c " ,,, the frtdtr:>rfal dwWgm ertt Marks% and the fed that the Cly has been actbey nv oNed 6t fend sales M the area However, the cunertt zwN reguMwu provide adequate any to maintain an attractive htdustrfal area w hh mhbnef impacts on edjaoertt properties. Therefore, the elinttrtelw of lerwdscape percentage requIrements does not dueeten the Cftys interest kt Industrial park deveiopnant. ExhibitA, OrdUtaneo etrrttrvOq the peroertlogo fendseape requirements, 43 01-0 wlnls Na City of Moab Vhfoet County, 11 -1 No AN OMNANCB AMENDING TITLE 10. CHAPTER 10A, SECTION 5 [. OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATWG TO LOT COVERAGE IN THE 04 ANDiIOR 11-1A ZONING DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 15A. Seedion 8 IN is amended to read as follows: (A) LOT COVERAGE Thane shall be no mWmum or mchnum bt coverape requhemenb In tis dhdrict Seem 2 This ordinance abed become edreCiw *om end alter ds pessape end puNicabom Uwl UNIBIT A - Ordinance Amendment /3-/ Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 •:un:� e.�tlu,tu - � ��e-.;•.� � ..i!i�'iTiC nilii'�'�T-7�:^7.i!GTi1i7 ii••iT•i ��ii.� �i! i t The City Council has recently approved the adoption of the MCP Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This report provides a conceptual outline of a proposed zoning district which would be designed to implement the MCP Plan. Rather than attempt to adjust one of the Cilys current zoning districts, we would propose to create a new district which is specifically tailored to the unique aspects of Monticello's downtown and the Goals and Objectives of the downtown plan. We have entitled this district (for the interim) the Central Community District. This title was chosen because it is expected that the district will include more than just business, and the common title 'Central Business District' would infer. Please review the outline of the district, along with the MCP Plan text, to discuss the pros and corns of the various components. staff expects to be able to bring actual Ordinance text to a public hearing before the Planning Commission in November. CCD - Central Comnwnny Dlstdct PLI - The purpose of the CCD District is to provide a method of implementing Monticello's downtown development plan goals and objectives. Due to the nature of the downtown plan, some development/redevelopment proposals will require more extensive City review, including Planning Commission and City Council action. However, marry activities should be able to develop without public meetings or hearings. The design of the district is intended to facilitate a less rigorous review process wherever practical. - The Permitted Uses listed In the City's current 8-1, B-2, B-3, and 8-4 Districts are proposed to be permitted uses in the CCD District. In addition, the Permitted Uses in the Public (Semi -Pub We District (primary public parks and the City Hell) would also be permitted, as well as civic and governmental uses which may be found in a community center. Restaurants and off-eale liquor would be included as a permitted use. Permitted Uses would also include residential dwellings, provided that such dwsWrtge do not occupy ground floor space of a building. That is, residential units would be permitted as bong as they occupy upper floors of otherwise commercially -used buildings. 44 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 The list of permitted uses would exclude the following from those mentioned above: gas station/convenience store (included as a conditional use); hotels/motels (included as a Conditional use); ARa2aMWses - Accessary uses are allowed in the district with language such as the following: Accessory uses which are dearly and customarily incidental to the principal use in size, activity, and scope. The primary difference here is that parking (normally listed as an accessory use) is going to get particular treatment in a separate section. Condkional Use - Conditional uses would include gas stations/convenience stores as allowed in the 8-3 district, hotels and motels without the 500 square foot of lot area per unit limitation of the B-3 District and residential uses which occupy the ground floor of a building. In addition, some of the B-3 and B-4 Conditional Uses would be included here, such as Pet Clinics, Fast Food (but with provisions which manage the auto - orientation of such uses), Day Care, Outdoor sales, but only as a temporary accessory use to an existing retailer, Interim Uses The Ordinance would be set up to allow for interim uses at this time, but would not specify any particular use. Instead, the City could consider individual Interum use requests as text amendments as they are proposed by landowners in the district. Lot Area It is proposed that no to area minimums would be established in the CCD District. Some lot area per unit requirements would be applied based on specific use, however. For instance, we would recommend a lot area per unit requirement of 3,000 square feet per residential unit be established, except for first floor and single family residential. In these latter categories, we would recommend 9,000 square feet per unit. We would also recommend a density credit for private 'structured! parking. This credit could be written into the Ordinance. A credit of 25% could result In an incentive to avoid open parking lots. We would also envision no credits available to buildings with first floor residential units. Lot Width Like lot area, we would not envision any minimum lot widths. Minimum widths tend to discourage multiple use of buildings in downtown districts. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 Building Height A maximum building height of fifty feet would allow for four-story buildings, but should be verified with fire department officials as to fire fighting issues. A minimum building height of 15 feet would help to avoid problems with low profile contemporary architecture. Architectural Requirements The architectural requirements found in the MCP Downtown Plan would be developed in the Ordinance as follows: -Permitted Uses oomplyrg with all other standards would be referred to the architectural sections of the Plan for reference. - Conditional and Interim Uses, or developments requesting a variance from the performance standards in the District would be required to comply with the architectural section of the Plan, as reviewed and interpreted by the Architectural Review Committee, and applied by the Planning Commission and City Council. -Developments which receive direct finenaal assistance from the City or one of its entities such as the HRA or EDA would be required to comply with the architectural guidelines. Financial assistance could include TIF, Tax Abatement, Revolving Loans for Rehabilitation, or other types of direct assistance. City assessment of improvements under §429 would not typically be considered direct assistance. It Is envisioned that the architectural review process would be administered by an Architectural Review Committee. The Committee would prepare a report on architectural oomplisnce to be submitted to the Planning Commission or City Council (depending on the nature of the project), lust as staff reports are prepared by Planning. Engheering, Public Works, or other staff. The applicant could appeal a determination of the Architectural Review Committee through the normal zoning appeal process. This process is likely to add thirty days to the review time of CCD applications. Fully complying. privately Maned permitted uses would receive architectural review for i formation and encouragement only under this process. Signage Signage would be reviewed along with the architectural review process for both compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance, as compatibility with the Downtown Plan's guidelines. The CCO DiaMct language would include references to the Plan's signage recommendations. 46 Planning Commieelon Agenda - 10/7/97 Panting The issue of off-street parking is one of the most difficult in a downtown district Assuming that some of the parting capacity will be accommodated in public lots and on -street, it would be inefficient to require the full amount of parking demand in private, off-street panting lots. Some Cities provide for all downtown area parking in public lots, exempting all businesses from any off-street parking requirements. Some Cities have developed parkM funds to help develop public lots in fie downtown. Others reduce the parking supply requirement, and provide for public use of private lots as a condition of allowing the reduction in parking area. The following schemes summarize the options: 1. Exempt CCD properties from any private harking requirements. This would put the burden for parking on public lots and on -street parking. Many of these public lots are assessed to the district to finance their acquisition and construction. 2. Maintain the requirement for parking spaces as identified in the City's parting regulations, but allow property owners to be exempted from the requirements with the payment of a fee into a CCD parking fund. The fee amount could be established to induce a property owner to forego private perking area in consideration of more building coverage on a lot, by disoounGng the fee as it relates to actual parking lot Construction. 3. Allow private parking lots at a reduced rate of parking supply, on the condition that the owner make the lot available to other downtown business patrons. This concept is intended to induce cross use of private parking areas, end reduced parking area lot coverage. These schemes could be used in con kbb Obn, or provided as options to the property owners. If the City assesses for public parking improvements, It could provide an assesament reduction for ,.,:, in any of these programs. The key would be to develop a system which is an incentive to avoid individual private parking lots as would typically be found In a suburban commercial development. Site Improvements The Downtown Plan includes a number of she improvement requirements and recommendations for development in the district. Examples of these we rear building treatments, parking lot and entry treatments, and private landscaping and streetscaping elements. These recommendations would be referenced in the CCD District language as baseline requirements for development, similar to the application of the architectural guidelines. 47 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 1. Cali for a Public Hearing on consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a downtown zoning district. Thera is no speaHc action to take on the outline as presented if the Planning Commission believes it has adequate background, a pu lft hearing could be scheduled for the regular November meeting. Take no action on the public hearing for the proposed zoning amendments at this time, pending additional h ft.. ation. Staff has no specific recommendation on this item. If the Planting Commission Teets that it has adequate background on ft issue, Staff would be able to provide a proposed Ordnance amendment to consider at a public hearing in November. Staff has scheduled a meeting with MCP members an this issue next week 191.08-97.17 48 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/97 aMndmignt to Title 10.e l tha Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating .1 mqnlred fencing.:.Mr:.:, ingoind lskndwaping by addingtree preservation od1 , The Parks Commission has submitted to the Planning Commission a proposal to make changes to the current zoning ordinance which would require an inventory and replacement program for trees lost through the development process. The proposed ordinance language would significantly alter the way we currently treat trees in the development process. Under the proposed ordinance, a plan would be required that would identify all significant trees within a development area. Funds would be required to be placed on deposit by the developer to assure that the plan for saving trees is adhered to. The ordinance also designates sizes of replacement trees, the type of species that are allowed as replacement trees, and regulates the timing of the planting of the replacement trees. The proposed ordinance amendment will add teeth to our comprehensive plan which generally favors preservation of natural features such as trees by requiring such preservation or replacement by law. Developers will not likely support this ordinance amendment because it requires an extensive amount of surveying and engineering work to identify tree locations and to establish tree preservation plans. It also requires significant deposits assuring proper replacement of trees. The positive side of this approach is that it creates expense associated with the destruction of trees by requiring tree replacement, which may result in Bite grading and site plan work that takes into account land contours when developing site plane. Following land contours helps to preserve existing vegetation. It should be noted that following land contours may work at cross purposes with certain city requirements for minimum street grades, which may be difficult to reconcile with the goal of preserving trees. Motion to call for a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Motion to deny calling for o public hearing. Motion to table calling for a public hearing. 49 Planning Commission Agenda - ION/97 V, STAFF F. O N13ATION: The Parks Commission has been working on this ordinance for some time. They feel it is very important that we go foward to develop a tree preservation program. This ordinance will move the City forward in this direction. This ordinance, however, is submitted with a word of caution. The development community may have some difficulty in adhering to the requirements of this code. It is not known if following the strict letter of this code will cause some properties to be very difficult to develop. It is important that the development community have a chance to review this ordinance prior to adoption. Therefore, it is being submitted to land owners with significant tree stands so that they understand what the impact of this code will be on the developability of their property. It is my recommendation that the Planning Commission review and discuss this matter and either call for a public hearing or table the matter pending gathering of additional information. Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. so Ordinance No. city of Mo ftotto Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2 (G], OF THE MONTICEII ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO REQUIRED FENCING. SGREENMG, AND LANDSCAPING BY ADDING TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1. IG.11 TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT: All areas for which building or zw tg permb are requested shall be subject to the following regulations with regard to the preservation of existing trees, and the rhment of trees loaf to such davelopment 1. PURPOSE: It is the intent of the City of Morideallo to protect, preserve, and enhance the rural envi onmeM of the City and to encourage a resouroetul and prudent approach to the development of wooded areas K b forsnd that trees enhance the valve of the Citys noghbw hoods, and help to reduce wind pdbAb % and energy consranplim Therefore, the Cly of Montleelb has found it necessary and desirable to establish requirements and daemon as to the preservation of emaWg trees on devebprnerht alter. The following process Is designed to ecuourage all davabpem. land owners, and budder to aave, to the extern oradieml all healthy trees of any size. 2 DEFINITIONS: (keep the proposed Perks Comm'sabn language as drafted, except for Land Alteradon and Mining Operdons. 3. PLAN REQUIRED: All developers and builders, prior to alteration of any land, shall be required to do the following: a Propm a tree preservation plan which Shall be b=rporated into the application for a conditional use permit preliminary plat, building permit, or cinch ia*4 or buff N permIL If a tree preservation plan has pmvbAly been prepared and approved fora parcel, an applicant may rey on the previous plan, dying compliance with said provbw plan. /V so ML -14-1997 b. Ensure that the tree preservation plan is adhered to durfrq the development and build'utg proem C. Submit a security, either through cash esaow or irrevocable Iffier of vett in a form able to the Cdy Zoning Afthstrator, for each lot to be developed Said aeeurity shall be held for twelve (12) months after the pWn*g of any replacement "was a surety for compliance with the Plan, mrd for survival and reptaratrsg d any replacement trees which fail to survive as r9*A by Paragraph 6 of this Seetlam at the discretion of the btMft of iciaL Said secu rtly shall be in an amount as follows: L AppQpnts for development on 1-3 Iota: $1,000 per bt, plus one hutdred fifty percent (150%) of the cost to krnish and pbrtt the mpteoemart trees, as estimated by a qualified landscape contractor. w Applicants for development an 4 or mora krta: $500 per lot plus one hundred fft pew (15096) of the cost to Aurtisft and plant the replacement trees, as estimated by a quelr7ied landscape contractor. 4. PLAN PREPARATION AND CONTENTS: The Tree Preservation Plan shall be oetttfled by a professional rester or landscape architect. The forester or landscape wditd shag indicate an the plan the folkowing Items: a. Skm apeales, and loeatlort of all s ofte ht treft b. 11en1111 110rt of all aunt trees to be saved, and proposed to be rerroved. Q Mansur= proposed to protea sip e=" fusee, bxhudtrtg but not limited to the following; L Installs! t of avow fencing or polyethylene IamUtarr safety netting placed at ft drip One. IL Prahbitlon of placIN fill wilhirt the drip One. UL Installation of erosion control meaatays. Iv. Prevention of ctarhpe In soil chemistry due to corvete washout and leakage or spm of tootle mau rials. V. Prevention of prtaft from April 15 to August 15. d Tree Replacement A developer or bAder shall replace /S -Z. JUL-14-1997 sig dIcart Ove trees last or reascrtebly armed to be lost as a result of grac ft Ixn7dr>g upon, or any other afteratiort of the land subject to a build'vrg, land altenatfoN or zoning permlL The trees required to be replaced pivaertt to this Section shall be in addition to any otter trees required to be planted pursuant to any other section of to code. The quw* of such :,.i..:,,, e � shall be determUred in accordance with the fo0owing fermata: A= Total Caliper inches of Sigr>tf= d Trees lost as a Resort of the Land Afterafim 6= Tocol Caliper trrCres of Sigiffm Trees Slaasted on the Land SuDjeet to the BufldbV or Zot" Permit C= Tree Reptec i ant Constant (1.33). D= Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) Formulw (( AIB )x C ) x A = D S. SI2FS OF REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shall be no less than the following stzes: a. Oedduous Trees: 2 ca0per inches. b. Coniferous Trees: 6 feet In height. S. SPECIES OF REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shall be of whit i;.. camoarnbla In An Aodmuj6MLj&L to those trees which we lost or removed, to the extent possible. Replacement trees must be'ce"111W rursery stock, oommenpelly available for planing In the Mortioello mea, and eonsIn- of northem grown material The City Zorft Admb.hMW makdabts a He of aooaptabia species, but In no ase 00 replant trees consist of the foUowlna a. Box Elder. b. SWW Maple vans M G Catalpa varieties. d. Russian Olive. 6. Gh ow, female ap. f. Mulberry. g. Coftormood or Poplar varieties. h willow V&AWL L Elm varieties. 7. TIME TO PERFORM: Replacement tress shoo be;', m 4 as soon as time and the Wowhp seesorl permb Wowh q Qre awn of the /S-3 lartd bta fn noease, sha0 ,..:, ,. . , tree F lereing occur lacer then eightm (16) mwMs from tfta dobe of lstrumme of the ant.. or twO" PemA & REPLANTMC: Any :,, tree whkh is no agm er IIW huft ane (1) yam ef0er the date that the fes: :, t tree has been pfatMed 00be removed and a crew healthy tree of the aarna size sha0 snnredfftly bs plmned in ptaoe of the removed tree. COMPLETIO t Fo0waft to eore00 of grading and corr MmOm fie prgram l imml to omm or landscape wch teat sha0 Praride a rRibsrl OetOECetiOn t0 the � verifyfr>A aomptlmme with the tree meawrea In adOlm said own sha0 MW* a0 Uess lost to dayebpn wd. irr kdit those whkh had been arWa* proposed to be sacred The Tree Raplaoerrrsru Plan dmW be ,IMP toregft reptaoarrr A d any ouch trees et a t: t Inch ratio. This ordinaMe shell baoome offoOve from and after M Pasaepe end publication. Ball /9-4 Tam P.05