Planning Commission Agenda 10-06-1998
,
.
.
.
AGE DA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 6, 1998 ~ 7 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie,Robbie Smith, oy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
1. Call to order
2. Approval of minutes ofthe regular meed g held September 1, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the age
4. Citizens comments.
5.
Consideration to amend the zoning ordi ance and/or the zoning map to allow restaurant use
by adding this use to the PZM District 0 by amending the zoning map to B3 (highway
business). Applicant: MMC Land Com any LLC.
6.
Consideration of a front yard variance fl r garage & porch addition. Applicant: Paul &
Janice Demars.
7. Consideration ofa Conditional Use Pe it for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) allowing
two parcels to be treated as a single resi ential parcel. Applicant: Beverly 1. Abrahamson.
8. Consideration of an ordinance amendin Section 3-6 of the City Zoning Code, providing
regulations for off-street loading berths, to prohibit loading berths from facing a public
street. Applicant: City of Monticello.
9. Consideration of an application for rene al of an interim use permit allowing a public use in
an 1-1 zone. Applicant: Monticello Pub ic Schools.
10. Consideration of rescheduling the Nove ber 3rd Regular Planning Commission Meeting due
to General Elections.
11. Update: Discussion on Rolling Woods oncept Development.
12. Adjournment.
.
...-'
.
.
.
MINUT S
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September ,1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Richard Carlson, Rod Dragst n, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith
Also Present:
Bill Fair and Council Liaiso Clint Herbst
Absent:
None
2.
Consideration of a roval of minutes of re
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE UGUST 4, 1998 REGULAR MEETING
WITH THE CORRECTION ON PAGE 2 F THE MINUTES THAT ROY POPILEK
SECONDED THE MOTION ON GRANTI G THE VARIANCE AND ROD
DRAGS TEN VOTED IN OPPOSITION 0 THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
3.
Consideration of additional items to the a e da.
Chair Frie requested that if there was time the end of the meeting, he would like an
brief explanation of procedures for workin in the easement.
4.
Citizen Comment
None
5.
Consideration of revisions to relimin at of River Forest
Subdivision. A licant John E. Chadwick LLC.
Jeff O'Neill presented the staff report on th revisions to the preliminary plat. The
removal of a portion of the River Mill 4th A dition land eliminated a cul-de-sac. Chair
Frie opened the public hearing. Lois Bauer spoke expressing her concern about the use of
Gillard A venue and related safety issues. S e noted that the plat entrance comes onto
Gillard Avenue at the break of the hill whi she felt was a hazardous situation. It was
suggested that she talk to the township offi ials about the procedure for having a stop
sign placed on Gillard Avenue. Chair Frie losed the public hearing. Roy Popilek asked
if the revisions to the plat affected drainag or ponding. Richard Bloom representing the
developer stated that they had made some odifications to the plat to address the
concerns about off-site drainage that were r ised in earlier Planning Commission action
on the plat. Mr. Bloom also noted that bec use the lowest floor elevation of the homes in
1
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
the addition could not be any lower than
some additional grading work around the
dedication fee for this development was I
plat was cash in lieu of land.
e high level of the holding pond it did require
ond area.. Chair Frie asked whether the park
d or cash. The park dedication fee for this
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHA CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE THE REVISED PRELIMI ARY PLAT OF RIVER FOREST SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. LOTS THAT ARE LOCATED ON A URVE HAVE THE WIDTH OF THE LOT
LABELED AT THE BUILDING SET ACK LINE AND THE WIDTH IS AT
LEAST 80 FEET.
2. PROPOSED STREETS ARE NAMED
3. ONE STREET ACCESS IS PROVIDE CONNECTING THE SPINE ROAD TO
GILLARD AVENUE. OUTLOT A SH LL PROVIDE A PAVED TRAIL ACCESS
ONL Y FROM FOREST CIRCLE TO ILLARD AVENUE.
6.
4. THE OFFSET INTERSECTION IS E IMINATED.
5. A TRAIL IS PROVIDED ALONG TH SIDE PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 6
CONNECTING THE SPINE ROAD TH THE RIVER MILL PARK.
6. THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS T
Motion carried unanimously.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report oting that this plat had been submitted as part
of a planned unit of development and one fthe conditions ofthe PUD was that St.
Henry's plat the property. The outlots sh on the plat were designated for drainage
and slope easements. The senior housing .n be located on Lots 2 & 3, Block 1 and will
have their access to 7th Street via a private driveway. Chair Frie opened the public
hearing. There was no one present who s oke on the request and Chair Frie closed the
public hearing. In discussion of the prop sal, the park relocation issue was raised.
Chair Frie asked what the time frame was or this project. John Olson representing St.
Henry's indicated that the church would Ii e to start grading in October. The use of the
outlots and the presence of an utility ease ent in the plat were also discussed.
2
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND RICH RD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PL T FOR THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PL T IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
APPROVALS GRANTED AS APART F THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
District to
Steve Grittman presented the staff report e plaining that the bank is building a new
structure and that is a permitted use in the CD but the drive-through facility requires a
conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman also addressed the 40% lot coverage requirement
and the use of the canopy area to meet tha requirement. The applicant could meet the
40% coverage requirement by converting lve parking spaces to plaza area and expanding
the canopy area over the drive-through Ian s. Otherwise the applicant would need to
request a variance in the lot coverage requ rement. The applicant was also requesting
approval of a temporary facility during th construction period. Chair Frie opened the
public hearing. Mr. Boarman, architect fi r Marquette Bank, presented a model of the
building and discussed the lot coverage re uirement. In order to meet the lot coverage
requirement, the applicant was proposing 0 expand the canopy area and to reduce the
total lot area by taking a portion of this lot and combining it with an adjacent lot also
owned by the applicant. It was proposed t at this be done by a simple subdivision
procedure which would require Planning ommission and Council review but no public
hearing. Chair Frie closed the public heari g. Rod Dragsten asked what the dimensions
of the adjacent lot would be if a simple su division was done. Presently the lot
dimensions are 66' x 165'. With the land t en from the building site lot the revised lot
dimensions would be approximately 100' 165'. The Planning Commission discussed
the area of the roof canopy and the lightin plan for the facility. Jeff 0 'N eill asked about
the 7' right-of-way for pedestrian use and hether it would be retained by the developer
or deeded to the city. Mr. Boarman stated that the building had been sited to allow for
the pedestrian and roadway easement and 0 variances were required for this property.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROBBIE SM TH SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE P RMIT FOR MARQUETTE BANKS FOR A
DRIVE UP BANKING FACILITY SUBJ CT TO:
1. SITE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ILL STRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE 40%
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.
2. APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY F ACI ITY FOR A SIX MONTH PERIOD.
3
,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
3. ESTABLISHING A 7' PEDESTRIAN ASEMENT ON WALNUT AVENUE.
Motion carried unanimously.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED AND R Y POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE A SIMPLE SUBDIVISIO WITH THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE
WEST OF THE BANK SITE BOTH LO S CURRENTLY BEING UNDER THE
SAME OWNERSHIP WITH THE LOT REA TO BE ADJUSTED SO THAT THE
40% COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FO THE BUILDING SITE COULD BE MET.
Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Consideration of a re uest for an amend
alternative an amendment to the zonin
Applicant: MMC Land Company.
nt to the PZM Zonin District or in the
a to B-3 from PZM to allow restaurant use.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report d showed on the current zoning map the area
in question. The city is considering a pro osal for a restaurant to locate in this area. The
PZM District includes commercial uses ich are allowed in the B-1 and B-2 Districts
but restaurants are not an allowed use. T e zoning map could be amended to establish a
B-3 District for this area or the language r the PZM District could be amended so that
restaurants could be included as conditio al use. If the Planning Commission felt that
restaurants are appropriate for this area, t e staff would recommend rezoning of the
property rather than amending the text fo the PZM District. Chair Frie opend the public
hearing. Jim Coen, representing MMC L d Company spoke on behalf ofthe proposal.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission asked about the
intended use of Lots B & C. The develop r has been approached about the possibility of
a bank situating there. Lot A is the propo ed site of the restaurant. Although the
developer currently owns all the lots it is roposed to either sell them for development or
build to suit. The City had not received y comments from adjacent property owners
concerning the proposal. Mr. Coen indic ted that Wright County had given approval to
the proposed access for the site. Access t County Road 75 will be a right in and right
out. Signage for the site was also discuss d. Jeff O'Neill noted that the sign size that
would be allowed would be comparable t that of Liberty Bank also located in this area.
There was discussion on whether this use was consistent with the area or whether it could
be considered spot zoning. It was pointe out that Hawkes Bar is zoned B-3 and this site
is contiguous to Hawkes Bar. It was sug ested that as a future agenda item the Planning
Commission may want to look at the PZ District.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROY POPIL K SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ZO ING MAP AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
EST ABLISH A B-3 DISTRICT ON THE L ND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED
INTERNAL STREET, BASED ON A FIN ING THAT SURROUNDING LAND USES
AND ZONING PATTERNS PROVIDE S PPORT FOR THIS REZONING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
RICHARD CARLSON AMENDED THE OTION TO STATE THAT LOTS G & F
WILL REMAIN ZONED PZM. ROBBIE MITH SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.
The amendment passed unanimously. The otion passed unanimously.
9.
Consideration of a re uest for an amendme t to a conditional use ermit PUD within the
CCD Zonin District to allow Cub Foods t install a drive-u window for its harmac .
Applicant: Cub Foods.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report 0 the request for a drive-up window for the
Cub Food pharmacy addressing in his repo staff concerns about traffic circulation
patterns. Mr. Grittman reviewed with the ommission the site plan and the revisions that
were proposed to the site plan. Site Plan C was recommended by the staff for approval.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ken Dahlen representing Cub Foods spoke stating
that Site Plan B was the alternative that wa preferred by Cub Foods. He also explained
that this is the first Cub Food to have the ive-in pharmacy feature so there was no data
on how it would work. It was felt that at t e most 40 cars a day may use the drive-up
facility. At anyone time 2-3 cars could util'ze the drive-up facility. The Planning
Commission discussed the impact on othe traffic iftraffic at the drive-up facility was
backed up. The canopy area of the drive-u and signage was brought up as well.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHA CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PHARMACY DRIVE-UP WINDOW FO CUB FOODS CONTINGENT ON THE
SITE PLAN BEING REVISED PER EXH BIT B TO RESOLVE POTENTIAL
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONFLICTS ND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IS FOR USE OF THE DRIVE- P FOR PHARMACY PURPOSES ONLY.
FUTURE PROPOSED CHANGES TO T E USE OF THE DRIVE-UP WILL
REQUIRE AMENDMENT TO THE CO DITIONAL USE PERMIT.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO AMEND THE OTION TO INCLUDE EXTENSION OF
THE CANOPY AND SIGNAGE AS APP OVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISORY
TEAM. The amendment passed unanimo sly. The motion passed unanimously.
5
.
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
Steve Grittman presented the staff report e plaining the reasons for the three conditional
use permits requested as well as the three v iances. The PZM District allows a mix of
residential and commercial uses but separa s the uses on different floors. The applicant's
proposal included both commercial and res dential uses on the first floor.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Pat T wnsend submitted a layout for the site and
explained what he was proposing to do. H noted that he has a comer lot and had
submitted his original proposal based on aple Street being his lot front. He later
learned that Broadway is considered his 10 frontage. Jim Herbst a property owner in the
area spoke and expressed his reservations bout allowing business uses in an established
residential neighborhood citing the impact t could have on the property values. Chair
Frie closed the public hearing.
While using Maple Street as the lot front ould lessen the number of variances the
proposal would require, the Planning Com ission did not feel that there should be a
change to the definition of front yard as it xists in the zoning ordinance. It was noted by
the property owner that the existing fence' s 6" from his property line. The existing
garage on the adjacent lot which encroach s into the setback area is an existing non-
conforming use. The Planning Commissi n considered whether this property was in the
commercial transition area. Since the PI ing Commission had not seen the layout of
the property until the meeting it did not gi e them adequate time to review the
information. Chair Frie asked the applic t the time frame he had in mind for this
proposal. Mr. Townsend indicated that as ar as scheduling contractors delaying action on
the proposal would create problems. Chai Frie also asked if the issues of lighting and
signage had been addressed. Richard Carlon asked about the parking spaces required
noting that there appeared to be three cov red spaces and four open spaces that could be
utilized for parking. Steve Grittman indic ted that ten parking spaces would be the
requirement for the five living units and s me additional spaces would be required for the
commercial uses. The consensus of the Panning Commission was to table action on this
to allow the property owner time to rewor his design and to work out the parking
requirements.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED AND R BBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION
TO TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT REGUL R PLANNING COMMISSION THE
,
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/98
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1) S RVICE COMMERCIAL USES IN A PZM
ZONE; 2) MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND OMMERCIAL USES IN A PZM ZONE;
AND 3) RESIDENTIAL USES WITH M RE THAN TWO UNITS IN A PZM ZONE
PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATI N. Motion carried unanimously.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROY P PILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
DENY THE REQUEST FOR: 1) A V ARI NCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FROM
30 FEET TO 10 FEET IN A PZM ZONE; )A VARIANCE IN THE PARKING LOT
SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET A PZM ZONE; AND 3) A VARIANCE
FROM THE REGULATIONS PROHIBI ING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY USE FOR
PRIV ATE OFF-STREET PARKING BA ED ON THE FINDING THAT THERE IS
ADEQUATE BUILDABLE AREA ON T E SITE AND THAT THERE IS NO
HARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE PROPE TY TO REASONABLE USE IN FULL
CONFORMANCE WITH A PERFORM NCE STANDARD. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair Frie asked if HRA had addressed th s and the staff informed the Planning
Commission that HRA was supportive of he project.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROY P PILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FIND G THAT THE MODIFIED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENT L MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TIF PLAN OR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-25 CONFORM TO
THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DE ELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE CITY. Motion carried unanimous1 .
12.
This item is a result of recent concept pI s for the area along the westerly extension of
7th Street. There was staff discussion as 0 whether the current zoning for the property is
appropriate. Steve Grittman pointed out he area under consideration. The Planning
Commission felt that residential use was robably not appropriate and that perhaps
commercial or light industrial might be ore suitable. Richard Carlson felt that when the
Planning Commission looked at this, the should look at the whole area and not just the
parcel covered in the proposal.
.
.
.
.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROBBIE SMI H SECONDED THE MOTION TO HOLD
THE ISSUE OVER FOR ADDITIONAL ISCUSSION AND ALLOW THE STAFF
TO MEET WITH STAR BUILDERS AN BRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. Motion carried unanimo sly.
Fred Patch at this time briefly explained th procedures utility companies use when
conducting work in the easement area.
Richard Carlson questioned why the Plann ng Commission packet did not include a copy
ofthe site layout on the Townsend propert . He felt not having this information made
the Planning Commission look poorly info ed.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOU AT 9:45 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion pas ed unanimously.
Recording Secretary
8
,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
5.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The City Council tabled action on this req est at its September meeting and directed this
item back to the Planning Commission du to a defect in the property notices which
resulted in one neighboring landowner mi sing notice ofthe public hearing (A Glorious
Church). Upon re-mailing, that landowne , as well as others have submitted information
regarding the potential impacts of this pro osed zoning. The developer had requested a
rezoning of his entire parcel from PZM to B-3. Staffs recommendation was for only the
south portion of the property between Co ty Highway 75 and the proposed internal
street to be rezoned. The north portion of he property would remain PZM.
Staffs recommendation was based in the eliefthat this quadrant of the County Highway
75/39/118 intersection was more appropri te for higher intensity commercial uses. The
PZM District allows commercial uses whi h are generally retail or office uses found in
the B-2, Limited Business District, as wel as others, such as car washes, which are more
commonly associated with the B-3, High ay Business District.
The split of the rezoning was recommend d in an effort to allow the transition of intensity
of land use from south and west to north d east. The church use to the east has written
to the City objecting to the rezoning, stati g that the transition would be ineffective, and
citing a denial of a similar request on Ian to the west of River View Drive.
Staff believes that the land use pattern wh ch would be created by the split
B-3/PZM zoning on the MMC land woul serve this area well. As noted in our previous
report, the intersection in question is one f the highest traffic areas of the community.
There would be few other locations in the community which would be more appropriately
designated for B-3 development. The re aining PZM land between the B-3 and the
church facility would limit the type of co mercial activity on this site. Due both to
traffic levels and visibility, staff does not elieve that the presence of B-3 zoning would
alter the interest in developing the PZM p rtion as intensively as possible. The transition
from B-3 to PZM to church, then to singl family (River Mill east ofthe church) is a
desirable land use pattern. Coupled with e required bufferyard regulations, staff would
not anticipate problems with compatibilit
1
Planning Commission Agenda - lO/6/98
.
It has been suggested by some property own rs that the denial of the B-3 zoning on the
River Road Plaza property to the west woul be predictive of a similar denial on this
parcel. It should be noted, however, that on of the issues which was raised by staff and
discussed with that application was that ift e City believed that the previously proposed
lube/oil facility were to be acceptable, it sh ld be accomplished by a rezoning to B-3
rather than an amendment to the PZM, as th landowners had sought. The B-3 zoning on
the River Road Plaza site was thought to be inappropriate, however, due to its direct
proximity to a developed residential neighb rhood, as well as a number of site planning
issues related to the facility itself.
.
Those concerns are significantly lessened o. this parcel. The commercial property to be
zoned B-3 is not adjacent to residential pro erty, and has better access and exposure to
the County Highway system. With the tran itional zoning in place as noted above, the
conditions on this parcel are perceptibly di erent than in the previous application. Staff
would not hold this same view for the entir parcel, as originally proposed by the
applicant.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the rezoning to -3 on the entire property as proposed by
MMC. This motion should be supp rted by a finding that this area of the
community would be more closely onsistent with the Comprehensive Plan if
zoned B-3.
.
2. Motion to approve the rezoning to -3 only on the area between the proposed
internal street and County Highway 75, as illustrated on Exhibit A. This motion
should be supported by a finding th t this zoning pattern would create a more
acceptable transition in land use, co sistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to deny the rezoning. This otion should be supported by a finding that
the PZM district does the better job of limiting commercial expansion in the
district.
4. Motion to add restaurant uses to th PZM District and make no changes to the
zomng map.
5. Motion to table action on the reque t, subject to additional information.
.
2
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
Staff recommends Alternative 2, partial re oning. As noted in the text, and in the report
for the September I Planning Commissio meeting, staff believes that the area in
question is most appropriately designated or B-3 zoning. This recommendation is based
in the level and nature of traffic in the are , the ability to create a positive land use
transition from the high-activity County 7 area to the low activity single family
neighborhoods. This request is distinguis ed from previous requests to the west in that
the transition was not possible in that area and site plan considerations on the smaller
River Road Plaza site did not properly acc mmodate the intended B-3 uses.
D: SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Proposed Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Council Minutes of 5/13/96
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
1
)
I
.I
i
I
<S>
~ - .:.;:~~;~?t;f~,~f::,{~;:~;'
Exhibit
- Proposed Zoning
5.1\
,
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B - OUNCIL MINUTES
i
_____~ I
9.
Council Minutes - 5/13/96
Assistant Administrator O'Neill repo ed that Investors Together was
requesting an ordinance amendment stablishing an oilllube facility as a
conditional use in the PZM zone, a co ditional use permit allowing operation
of an oilllube facility in a PZM zone, a well as an ordinance amendment
establishing minor auto repair as a co ditional use in the PZM zone. O'Neill
noted that a few years ago the Planni g Commission approved allowing an
oilllube facility in the PZM zone; how ver, the request was withdrawn by the
applicant and was never reviewed by he City Council. Mter reviewing the
current request at their May 7 meetin ,the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the ordinan e amendment allowing auto
maintenance facilities as a conditiona use in the PZM zone.
Planner Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants noted that
because the proposed oilllube facility ould be a "while-you-wait" service, it
could compatibly exist in the PZM dis rict provided various conditions were
implemented. In regard to the propos d ordinance amendment allowing
minor auto repair in the PZM zone, G 'ttman suggested that Council rezone
the property if they felt this would bean appropriate use ofthe site rather
than pursue a PZM district amendme t.
Council noted their concern with ame ding the PZM district regulations, as
any change would affect all PZM zones in the city. They were also concerned
that cars may eventually be left over . ght at the site.
Ken Schwartz noted that the current ar wash at the site has a bigger impact
on the site than an oilllube facility w uld have, as the car wash could see
approximately 250 cars on a busy da ,while the oilllube facility would have
only 25-30 cars per day. It was his vi w that the traffic impact would be
minimal.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY DERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO DENY THE ORDINANCE ENDMENT ALLOWING AUTO
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AS A CO DITIONAL USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT,
Motion is based on the finding that th proposed amendment and resulting
use is not consistent with the spirit d intent of the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordi ance, the proposed amendment and
resulting use is likely to have an adve se impact upon surrounding
properties, and the proposed use is no consistent with the purpose of the
PZM district. Motion carried unanim usly.
A MOTION WAS ALSO MADE BY SHIR EY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY
TOM PERRAULT TO DENY THE CONDI IONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO
MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN A PZM Z NE AND DENY THE REQUEST FOR AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWIN MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIRIN A
PZM ZONE. Motion is based on the fin ing that the proposed uses are not
consistent with the spirit and intent 0 the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, and the propo ed uses are likely to have an adverse
impact upon surrounding properties. otion carried unanimously.
~,?-
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
6.
Public Hearin -Consideration of a front ard variance in the R-l Zonin District
for a ara e and orch addition. A lie nt: Paul & Janice Demars. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
Mr. and Mrs. Demars are seeking to conve their present garage to a family room and
add a new garage area and porch toward th front of their residence at 1500 West River
Street.
Their land survey was submitted late and i unclear with regard to why a variance would
be justified. By the survey, it appears that the proposed additions are at most 1.9 feet of
being within the required 30 foot front yar setback. As such, it is very difficult to make
findings necessary to support the granting f a variance to front yard setback.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny the variance as no mding of hardship can be made, further
suggesting that the property owner redesign their plans to meet the required 30
foot front yard setback.
2.
Motion to allow a variance for a 2 oot reduction to the 30 foot front yard setback,
to construct a garage and porch ad ition.
Making the findings that: (To be etermined by Planning Commission.)
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A -Location Map.
Exhibit B - Land Survey
I
.
.
.'
.
.1
",.
..
.'"
,-
.-
..'"
.'
,.....,
. .",
. II
"
...,1
w~ il
,
: ,
.. _.iJ
~
0::
<I
CL
)-
Wm
l.Ll L 'j!
3~llj
. U
....
(I)
(f) I- W
i :-~~~
I --
. ..
---~~
~
i
I \
w
~
o
L
.
I
~ i..\\el.''''~
. . -, - , " .~,
. I "n . 1
L
~
~
/
~
H
~
U
S
I
-<
~/
/
A/V
/ c::::
.i.~
{t~
,,\
.
.
~
r;>
......
.......
~
.....
......
.","
~
;,~
......
......
----
---.......
-If'..-
" ....... .
"~'., ~~
~.......,
~
'.,
"
;.......
f\
. .........
~.
J
~
22
........
23
IBIT B - LAND
SURVEY
\id-'
T A YLDR LAND
213 ",. BROADWAY Sf,lRVfYORS. INC.
HQNTICELL 0"" P.o. 8/JX 179
PHONE . "". "362
\ I 612-29'-3388
FAX' 61
2-2"-3408
,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
7.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
Ms. Beverly Abrahamson has submitted a r quest for a lot combination which would
allow her to construct a garage on the prop y. The location of the property is at One
Linn Street, which is zoned R-2: Single F ily and Two Family Residential.
The applicant would like to construct a gar ge on the property, but there is an
inconsistency surrounding the recording of he lot. Although the garage would meet all
setback requirements, it would be placed 0 an existing parcel line. The two subject
parcels are owned by the current owner (M . Abrahamson).
The original plat was required because of a lot line dispute between Lot A and Lot B.
Here, the owners had questions about lot li e placement, so they erected a fence where
they felt the lot line should be. However, ey did not have the newly agreed lot line
recorded. Upon selling the property, it wa determined that the properties be platted to
eliminate the lot line dispute. Unfortunate y, Ms. Abrahamson did not include the second
parcel, which she owns, in the plat.
Now, in order to for the applicant to const ct a garage, she will need to clear the dispute
with the County Registrar of Deeds, beca se the garage would lie on the parcel line.
However, due to a County policy, they wi 1 not register the change without a re-plat on
the property. This will likely cost the app icant approximately $2,000 or more. The
applicant returned to the City to discuss w ys in which she could handle the situation
without paying for are-plat.
The applicant has submitted the proposed deed restriction (Exhibit C) which would treat
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 as a single parcel fo purposes of determining building setbacks and
restrict the current owner, heirs, successo s, and/or assigns ofthe owner from the separate
sale ofthe two parcels.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the CUP for a UD subject to the deed restriction (Exhibit C).
This motion should be supported y a finding that a filing problem at Wright
County has caused the applicant' problem, not because of any physical problem
with the property or administrati e concerns with the City.
5
Motion to deny the CUP for a PUD. This would be supported by a finding that
PUD's are intended to be used in lar er projects which would benefit from
comprehensive planning and not for e avoidance of otherwise required
administrative procedures.
.
2.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
3.
Motion to table action on the CUP P D, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1, approval 'th deed restriction. As noted in the report,
the intent of the CUP PUD is to treat the tw parcel as a single parcel for purposes of
determining building setbacks. The applic t has approached the County about filing,
externally from the City. However, due to administrative policy, the County requires
the applicant to submit a re-plat to combine the "garage" parcel with the "house" parcel.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Legal Description
Exhibit C - Site Plan
Exhibit 0 - Deed Restriction
.
6
.,
.
,
LOCATION
SITE
EXHIBIT A -
1/2
MILE
MSON PROPERTY
RAHA
rfJ:/
if- "0
'\., ,
"'.4
.
.
,
EXHIBIT B - EGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1:
Lot 2, Block 1, Worth Estates, Wright County, Mi esota
PARCEL 2:
Lots Six (6), Seven (7) and the East Half (E Yz) of ot Eight (8), excepting therefrom the North
60 feet of said Lots, all in Block Fifty-six (56) in th Townsite of Monticello, according to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of th County Recorder in and for Wright County,
Minnesota, lying North of the following described ine: Commencing at the Southeast comer of
said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said ot 6, a distance of 63.50 feet; thence West to
the West line of the East Half of Lot 8 to a point 6 .00 feet North of the Southwest comer of said
East Half of Lot 8 and there tenninating, Wright C unty, Minnesota.
<\/d-
I
.
I
~
J...
o
-./
&
\"
~....
:I'</ESOT A
EXHIBIT C - 51 E PLAN
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
..
SHOll LINE
- 176.6'!: _
~ -----..
::::0-.... --r--
-----......- ---"""'...r-
J...
o
"
&
....\"
'"
/
/
/
/
/ C> :?-
/ .--.L ..,. ~
, .;. ./c/
/ y /.?' co....-
--&
/
56
/
..
5
6>0
.......
.......
------
~
:~ 0-- MOST ELY CORNER
...... . ;.~ Of Lor 6.
6>0
/'--....
/ ...............
'/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
t
~
~
~
"Y
"
1\/3
,l-
. I DRAHN BY:
.1 CfECKEi
.
.
,
EXHIBIT D - DE D RESTRICTION
DEED RESTRICTION
This Agreement is entered into this 14th day f September, 1998 by Beverly J.
Abrahamson, the record fee owner of the prope y described herein (hereinafter
"Owner') and the City of Monticello (hereinafte "City").
WHEREAS, the Owner owns two parcels 0 property located in the City of
Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota described on Exhibit A hereto as Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2; and
WHEREAS, a residence is located upon Pa cell, and the Owner desires to
construct a garage on Parcel 2 for the benefit 0 the residence located upon Parcell;
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed b tween the Owner and the City as
follows:
1. The City hereby agrees to treat Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 as a single parcel for
purposes of determining building setbac s.
2. In consideration of the City considering arcel1 and Parcel 2 to be treated as a
single parcel as described in paragraph above, Owner hereby agrees that she is
hereby prohibited from conveying Parce 1 or Parcel 2 as separate parcels, but
that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 must hence fo h be conveyed together as if they were
a single parcel.
3. This Deed Restriction shall be binding
of the Owner.
Dated: 1~h /
pon the heirs, successors and/or assigns
r--
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this 14th day of September,
1998 by Beverly J. Abrahamson, a single pers n.
. ~.
'f)1 0 PU){J,())_ O/Y1/k_ -,(If ~
Notary Public
..,:;::.~.~
ii, ..!.~~ MELISSA ANN RE/llEOY
i~ . I' NOTARY PUBLIC. MIW;::::;,,\ .
\~t My CommISSIon bp,res ,an. ; I .CCJ ;
'\'~
F
.
.
,
8.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The existing ordinance regulating off-street loading does not permit loading berths in the
front yard setback. The intent of this ordin ce is to avoid unsafe traffic congestion and
obstruction at into approaches and into pub ic streets.
Specific undesirable effects of the current rdinance include:
I. This intent is not well served by th existing ordinance in that if a loading berth is
located fronting toward the a publi street, traffic movements often end up into the
street and drives internal to the site nd serving required parking are obstructed.
2. In addition, loading berths facing p blic streets are unsightly and do not support
quality commercial or industrial de elopment.
The proposed amendment to current ordin ce will address each of the concerns listed
above and provide for safer and more aest etically pleasing loading berth installations by
forcing traffic movements away from publ c streets. Buildings will likely be more
aesthetically pleasing because areas being erved by loading berths will be forced by
design to be toward the front of the prope y being developed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City ouncil that the current loading berth ordinance
be amended as attached to prohibit the development of loading berths facing upon
a public street.
2. Motion to recommend to the City ouncil that the current loading berth ordinance
not be amended. (Or provide some further direction to staff).
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Co ission recommends Alternate 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Ordinance ith strike-out and underlining to show
amendments
7
EXHIBIT Ai _ COpy OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE IWTH STRIKE OUT AND UNDERLINING TO SHOW AMENDMENTS
.
.
,
ORDINANCE O.
CITY OF MON ICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-6 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATI NS RELATING TO OFF-STREET
LOADING.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-6 of the City Code is ereby amended to read as follows:
3-6: OFF-STREET LOADING:
[A] PURPOSE: The regulation of loading spaces in these zoning
regulations is to alleviate r prevent congestion of the public right-
of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the
public by establishing min mum requirements for off-street
loading and unloading fro motor vehicles in accordance with the
utilization of various pare Is of land or structures.
[8] LOCATION:
1. All required loadin berths shall be off-street and located on
the same lot as the building Of use to be served.
2. All curb cuts servin loading berth~ curb cuts shall be
located at a minim m fifty (50) feet from the intersection of
two (2) or more str et right-of-ways. This distance shall be
measured from the property line.
3. No loading berth's all be located closer than fifty (50) feet
from a residential istrict unless within a structure.
4. No 10adinR berths shall not occupy the front yard
setbacks or face a ublic street exce t when allowed to
face a ublic street b conditional use ermit.
Loading berths an associated truck movements located in
front ard setbacks or facin a ublic street at the front or at
the street side of b ildings on a comer lot shall require a
conditional use pe it under the provisions of Chapter 22 of
this ordinance pro ided that:
5.
<i>A
,'~
EXHIBIT A2 - COpy OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH STRI . OUT AND UNDERLINING TO SHOW AMENDMENTS
.
(a) Loading bert. s shall not conflict with pedestrian or
vehicular mo ement on the develooment site or on a
public street.
(b) Loading bert s shall not obstruct the view of the
public right- f-way from off-street parking access.
d
(c) s shall comply with all other
of this section.
6. Each loading berth hall be located with appropriate means
of vehicular access to a street or public alley in a manner
which will cause th least interference with traffic.
.
[C] SURFACING: All loading erths and access ways shall be
improved with not less th n six (6) inch class five base and two
(2) inch bituminous surfa ing to control the dust and drainage
according to a plan subm tted to and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
[0] ACCESSORY USE, PARKI G, AND STORAGE: Any space allocated
as a required loading bert or access drive so as to comply with
the terms of these zoning regulations shall not be used for the
storage of goods, inopera Ie vehicles, or snow shall not be
included as part of the sp ce requirements to meet the off-street
area.
[E] SCREENING: Except in t e case of multiple dwellings, all loading
areas shall be screened a d landscaped from abutting and
surrounding residential u es in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordi ance.
[F] SIZE: Unless otherwise s ecified in these zoning regulations, the
first loading berth shall b not less than fifty-five (55) feet in length,
and all loading berths sh II be not less than thirty (30) feet in
length. All loading berth shall be not less than ten (10) feet in
width and fourteen (14) et in height, exclusive of aisle and
maneuvering space.
,
~Id- ~-
.
.
,
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
9.
Public Hearin - Consideration of an a lication for renewal of an interim use ermit
aIlowin a ublic school use in an 1-1 Z ne. A licant: MonticeIlo Public Schools. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The Monticello School District is applyin for renewal of an interim use permit for public
school use at 1248 Oakwood Drive East, i an 1-1 Light Industrial District. Originally
allowed by the City in September 1997, e interim use permit stipulated that upon the one
year anniversary ofthe original interim us permit, the applicant must reapply to the City.
Over the course of the past year staff rece ved no complaints from adjacent property owners.
The Alternative Learning Center program as been a success and staff is recommending that
the interim use be allowed to continue for additional year term. It is suggested that the
interim use permit again expire on some d te certain, and that the School District be required
to reapply to the City on or before that ex iration date should they want to continue the
interim use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to recommend to the City ouncil to approve the issuance of an interim use
permit to the Monticello School District to operate an alternative school program at
1248 Oakwood Drive East, subject to the findings that the proposed use will not
interfere with the City's long rang objectives to encourage industrial development in
the area; and that the following co ditions apply to the interim use permit:
a. The interim use permit will expire on August 31, 1999. Extension
of the use of the subject pr perty for public school use beyond the
termination date may only e allowed by re-application to the City.
b. The District agrees to expa d the parking area at the direction of the
City. The City will direct e panded parking based on its observation of
parking demand which ma cause the use of on-street parking at any time.
c. The use ofthe subject prop rty will be during normal school hours only.
d. The granting of this interim use permit shall not be effective until after
inspection and approval of the building and property by the City Building
Official.
2.
Motion to recommend to the City ouncil that the interim use permit be denied and
that continued school use in the Li ht Industrial District end on or before (date to be
determined); finding that the conti ued school use in the Light Industrial District
would interfere with the City's Ion range industrial development goals (and as
otherwise determined by Planning ommission).
8
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
.
C.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Comm ssion recommend Alternate 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of minutes of Planning C mmission Meeting of 9/2/97
.
,
9
EXHIBIT Ai - COPY OF MINUTES OF PLANNI G COMMISSION MEETING 9/2/97
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/2/97
.
9.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d the Monticello School District has
requested approval of their request t 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 dis rict proposes to occupy an existing 4,800
square foot, two story industrial buil ing between the H-Window building and
Simonson Lumber. The proposed us will be an alternative school program for
students identified by the district for more individualized treatment. The
district has indicated that the progr m will begin the school year with
approximately 30-50 students, and i expected to expand to 50 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 Ordin ce to allow the school use in the industrial
district. Second is the district's appl cation for an interim use permit allowing
occupancy for this school year.
Proposed Conditions to interim use
.
1.
The interim uee permit will t rminate on August 31, 1998. Extension of
the use of the subject propert for public school purposes beyond the
termination date may only be granted through reapplication to the City.
2. The District agrees to stripe t e 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 cause the use of on-street parking at any time.
4. 'l'he use of the subject proper will be for alternative classroom use
during normal school hours 0 ly, and not for any other use.
5. The District may occupy the uilding during remodeling only at the
direction and under conditio s identified by the building official.
6.
The district shall make every ffort to avoid permanent changes to the
building which, in the opinio of the Building Official, would not be
characteristic of an industrial use.
,
~~\
EXHIBIT A2 - COpy OF MINUTES OF P
ING COMMISSION MEETING 9/2/97
.
Chairman Frie upened the public hea . ng.
Shelly Johnson, consultant for the M nticello High School, explained this
program was started while he was th superintendent and stated there will be
room in the new high school in appro imately two years. The Assistant
Principal, Pam Hingstad, has made e tensive efforts to find available space to
continue this prugram. Many cummu ities 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 Dri e, if school buses would be trying to enter
the parking lut, and if major changes ere being made to the building.
Mr. Johnson stated the students are 'gh school age and because of this many
will be driving. If schaul transportati n is used it will be a van not a bus. The
school is only leasing the space fur th alternative learning program not
purchasing the building. The remade ing will not prohibit this building from
being an industrial office in the futur ; the structure will not be changed.
.
RICHARD CAHLSON MADE A MOT ON TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN, AN AMENDMEN'r TO HE ZONING ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING IN'rEHIM USES I THE I-I ZONE. MOTION BASED ON
THE Ii'INDING IDENTIFIED IN 'fH PLANNER'S HEPORT. Motion passed
unanimously.
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION T APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON, AN AMENDMENT TO T E ZONING ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHI~G SCHOOL USES AS INTERIM USES IN THE 1-1 ZONING
DISTRICT, MOTION BASED ONT H 1 FINDING IDENTIFIED IN THE
PLANNER'S REPORT Motion passe unanimously.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOT ON TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN THE ISSUANCE OF A IN'rERIM USE PERMIT TO THE
,
MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 OPERATE AN ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOL PROGRAM AT 1 ~48 OA OOD DRIVE E. SUBJECT TO THE
FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED SE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
CITY'S LONG HANGE OBJECTIVE OF ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, D E TO THE TEMPORARY NATUHE OF
THE PERMIT, AND THE MINIMAL LTERA'l'IONS TO THE PHOPEHTY.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PLY:
.
q~d-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/98
10.
Consideration of reschedulin the Nov mber 3rd Re ular Plannin Commission
Meetin~ due to General Elections. (Dis ussion)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO D:
It is necessary to reschedule the Novemb r yd Planning Commission Meeting due to
General Elections being held on that date. The Council Chambers are available on
Wednesday, November 4, 1998. This dat would enable the planning items to be
forwarded on to the City Council on Nov mber 9, 1998.
o