Planning Commission Minutes 04-12-1993 (Special Meeting)
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 12, 1993 - 6 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, and
Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson; Jeff O'Neill; Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6 p.m.
2.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by rescinding Section 20-2[CJ which requires that planned unit
development proposals must include an area of at least 3 contiguous acres.
Applicant, AmericInnlTaco BelL
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the background to the
proposed ordinance amendment. O'Neill explained procedures similar to what
was done with the Battle Rapids subdivision. The only thing is, with the
exception that we went through the variance procedure for allowing
development of that subdivision with less than 3 acres.
Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, stated that property size is not relevant
to determining acceptability of a pun request. Typically, with the use of the
planned unit development, there is a trade-off, will allow development to occur
on these parcels, with the development usually occuring in a perimeter around
the parcels ofland usually within the building setback requirement perimeters.
Usually what occurs is some type of development requiring a variance or an
allowance from an ordinance requirement to allow the full development within
the site, always inside of the building setback perimeters.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, she then closed the public hearing.
Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the meeting for comments from the
Planning Commission members.
Concerns of the Planning Commission members were with future
developments, this might be the start of a number of PUD's where
development could occur not meeting the minimum ordinance requirements.
Grittman reiterated that PUD size is not a relevant factor determining PUD
acceptability.
Page 1
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
There being no further discussion amongst Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
the request to amend the zoning ordinance by rescinding Section 20-2[C] which
requires that a planned unit development proposal must include an area of at
least 3 contiguous acres. Motion carried unanimously. Motion is based on the
finding that PUD size is not a relevant factor in determining whether or not
a PUD is designed properly.
3. Public Hearing--Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a
commercial PUD (planned unit development) in a B-3 (highway business) zone;
and a variance request allowing pylon sign height in excess of 32-ft maximum.
Applicant, Taco Bell/Willard Murphy.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, commented that Steve Grittman had
prepared the agenda item and referred Mr. Grittman for the review of his
comments.
.
The proposed PUD is being requested to solve two ordinance constraints on
this development. The first is the subdivision request which would remove the
AmericInn from having public street right-of-way frontage. The second is to
permit a pylon sign location for Taco Bell on the remaining Americlnn
property. Concerns are raised that the site plans as submitted do not provide
the positive trade-off, which would justify the use of the planned unit
development in this case. Possible improvements are as follows:
1. Several existing hotel parking stalls have been eliminated from
the hotel parking lot, which need to be replaced in association
with the new plans.
2. The required parking space requirements for convenience foods
establishments require this site to have 24 total parking stalls
where the site plan shows 34 total stalls.
To consider this request, approval should be subject to the City requiring that
higher standards of site/building design and creative use of the land be
implemented by using one or more of the following:
A. Enhanced landscape requirement. The detailed and specialized
use of plant and site materials should be required through unique
plantings, increased quality of materials.
.
Page 2
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
B.
Design for people. The site and landscape design should focus on
pedestrian interaction from the motel site to the proposed Taco
Bell restaurant site.
c.
Coordinated site plan. Visual and physical integration of
buildings, parking areas, and landscaping should be required.
Sil:!n Heig'ht Variance.
Taco Bell is proposing to add a pylon sign to the existing pylon pole, which has
Perkins on the top and AmericInn below that. The total height for the existing
pylon sign being at 90 ft above the ground. Taco Bell is proposing to be
allowed to use this pylon pole for the placement of a 97 sq ft pylon sign below
the AmericInn sign at a height of approximately 65 ft above the ground;
however, this situation does not appear to be unique. A sign could be
constructed on the site and meet the minimum sign height and sign square
footage requirements.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
.
Meleah Miller, representing the architectural/engineering firm for the Taco
Bell franchise restaurant, explained some of the site area improvements that
were placed onto the site plan, which was distributed to Planning Commission
members which wasn't in their handout materials. Ms. Miller highlighted
some of the concerns the Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman, had in regard
to the new site plan, integration of a pedestrian sidewalk from the proposed
Taco Bell restaurant to meet with the existing AmericInn Motel sidewalk.
With the small site, the chances of integrating some type of outside eating
areas on the site could be possible but would not be practical on this small site.
Additional shrubs and tree plantings are also shown on the plan. l'he existing
dumpster for the AmericInn has been relocated to the rear of the existing
AmericInn parking lot with a screened enclosure around it and landscaped
around the screened enclosure.
The pylon sign is proposed to be located on the same pylon sign pole as the
AmericInn and Perkins Restaurant sign. If this is not acceptable to the
Planning Commission, they would propose to have an easement extended along
the Americlnn property to the rear of the AmericInn property to allow for
placement of a 32-ft high, 200 sq ft pylon sign.
.
John Ruggieri, partner in the Taco Bell architectural/engineering firm,
explained that his staff had been working with City staff all day to come up
with the site plan revisions as requested by City staffi'Consulting Planner.
Page 3
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
Mr. Scherr, attomey for Mr. Murphy, commented on the Taco Bell request that
Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are in complete agreement with Taco Bell's planned unit
development request and would also like to have the pylon sign for Taco Bell
mounted on their existing pylon sign pole.
City staff brought up a Taco Bell location in Plymouth about the same type of
location with that one not having a pylon sign 65 ft in the air. Mr. Scherr
commented on the location. This would not be a project here without the Taco
Bell restaurant being able to utilize some freeway exposure of their pylon sign
to attract travelers off the road to stop at their location.
Mr. Ruggieri commented on a good location for the pylon sign is needed for its
accessibility, travelers' accessibility to the restaurant. O'Neill commented that
hardship is not created by location. Monetary cannot be a reason for the
hardship. Steve Grittman commented that the City's sign ordinance should
not be jeopardized to facilitate this development.
Representatives of the Monticello VFW Club commented on the parking, where
the current semi-truck tractors are parking in their lot.
.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for further input from
the Planning Commission members.
Jon Bogart questioned the cueing length for the driveup being only
approximately 4 stalls in length. Richard Carlson commented on the
architectural continuity between the two uses. Also questioned the size of the
sign and the square footage of the existing AmericInnlPerkins pylon sign.
Mr. Ruggieri commented his staff had sent up a copy of the proposed 97 sq ft
Taco Bell pylon sign to be mounted on the existing 90-ft high AmericInn/
Perkins pylon sign.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie to deny the request for allowing a pylon
sign height in excess of the 32-ft maximum. Motion died for lack of a second.
.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the variance request allowing a pylon sign to be constructed in excess
of the 32-ft maximum. Also to allow a conditional use permit for a commercial
planned unit development in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Voting in favor:
Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Richard
Martie.
Page 4
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
Reason for approval of the variance: They would rather see a pylon sign
attached to the existing pylon pole with AmericInn and Perkins rather than
have an additional pylon sign constructed near the existing pylon sign. The
negative effect of a higher sign (65 ft) possessing a sign face of 97 sq ft is offset
by eliminating the need for a new pylon with a sign area potential of 200 sq ft.
4. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7 :05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~/tf:f~
Ga And rson
Zoning Administrator
Page 5