Planning Commission Minutes 05-04-1993
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4, 1993. 7 p.m.
Members Present: Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Hichard Carlson, Cindy Lemm
Members Absent: Brian Stumpf
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick WolfsteHer, Steve Grittman
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, at
7:04 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by .J on Bogart to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held April 6, 1993, and the special meeting
held April 12, 1993. Voting in favor: Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Cindy
Lemm. Abstaining: Richard Carlson. Absent: Brian Stumpf.
3. Public Hearinl!--Consideration of a variance request to allow development of
a driveway within the 5-ft minimum setback area. Applicant. Monticello-Bil!
Lake Community Hospital District. AND
4.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a variance request to the front yard setback
requirement that would allow construction of a canopy over the clinic entrance.
Applicant, Monticello-Bil! Lake Community Hospital District.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the hospital district's request to be allowed to develop a driveway
within the 5-ft minimum green area setback requirement and also to be
allowed to const.ruct a canopy in the front yard setback requirement. O'N eill
turned it over to Mr. Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, for his comments
on the justification for approval of a variance in this request.
Mr. Grittman commented on the 19-ft driveway width versus the proposed
24-ft driveway width. With the proposed 24-ft driving width, the vehicles
would be allowed to go around a parked vehicle in front of the entrance,
therefore mitigating congestion with people waiting in line under the 19-ft
driveway width with the vehicle in front of them to move. Mr. Grittman
highlighted the concern with being able to develop something that's functional
and look at variances to accommodate that rather than allow something to be
built that wouldn't be functional to utilize its purpose.
Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, then opened the public hearing.
Concerns raised from a consulting engineering firm for the hospital district by
increasing the driveway width from 19 ft to 24 ft would allow better
accessibility and use of the front entrance as a major area for handicapped!
Page 1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
disabled people to be brought to the clinic and dropped off or picked up at this
location. The canopy would be constructed so as to be permanently attached
to the ground and to the existing building to facilitate a covered canopy over
the front entrance and the driving lane in front of it.
Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for further input from the Planning Commission members.
Questions raised on how this particular request affects the overall planning
issue, if the Council had approved a joint planning with the hospital district
to come up with an overall plan for the hospital district area.
'fhere being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the variance request to allow development of a driveway within the
5-ft minimum setback area requirement and to approve the variance request
to the front yard setback requirement that would allow construction of a
canopy over the clinic entrance. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf and Cindy Lemm absent. Reason for approval: It makes more sense
to use the wider width to allow for movement of traffic around a parked
vehicle. It would allow handicapped!elderly access to a facility and use that
provides needed health services to the handicapped and elderly.
5.
Consideration of amendments to the zoninl! map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center.
Applicant. Monticello Industrial Park Inc. AND
6.
Public Hearinl!--Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in coni unction with
the request for zoning district boundary changes.
Jeff O'Neill provided a brief history of the circumstances leading to the
rezoning request and described the request in detail. Steve Grittman reviewed
the Chelsea Corridor Study and outlined reasons supporting the zoning district
amendments made in conjunction with the Chelsea Corridor Study.
Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Charlie Pfeffer commented on the background of his ownership of the property
to his request as presented before the Monticello Planning Commission. Mr.
Mike Gair, Mr. Pfeffer's consulting engineer, commented on his background in
regard to industrial/commercial planning of properties like this.
In his presentation, Gair noted that the developer's rezoning proposal
reinstates land uses that were believed to be appropriate prior to the Chelsea
Corridor Study.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
.
Mr. Gair then gave a detailed outline of his presentation. Mr. Steve Grittman
commented on the freeway ramp. What should be the zoning there if a
freeway was there versus if you applied zoning if it is not. If a freeway ramp
is installed eastbound, this doesn't increase the travelers stopping because of
this interchange. But it causes problems, taking away from existing Highway
25 businesses with the amount of travelers going through on Highway 25.
Mr. Pfeffer commented that all the rezoning in this area has been generated
by the City and not by a private owner.
Candace Bergstrom, a concerned resident, commented on bringing in
commercial across from the middle school entrance. Bringing in commercial
around residentially-located school buildings is something she felt shouldn't be
a compatible use with the school in this area.
Commission member, Richard Martie, commented he would like to see the
zoning remain as it is, maybe some changes in the future but not for now. Mr.
Martie was referring to the B-3 (highway business) zoning and the B-2 (limited
business) zoning on the east side of County Road 118.
.
.Jon Bogart felt that there should be some type of mixed zoning next to Fallon
Avenue.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by .J on Bogart to table the
consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center and to
table the consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with the request for
zoning district boundary changes. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent.
Staff was asked to provide agendas and meeting minutes relating to zoning
amendments made prior to the Chelsea Corridor Study.
.
Page 3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
7.
Consideration of a zoning- ordinance amendment which would allow a permit
for promotional signagelbanner for 2 weeks out of every month, or a total of
168 days a year. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow promotional
signage/hanner to bear an advertising message, including product and pricing.
AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with promotional
signage fees. Applicant, 9 local businesses.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the three zoning ordinance
amendment requests as follows:
1.
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
promotional signagelbanner to bear advertising message, including
product and pricing.
After closer review of the ordinance, it was discovered that this
amendment is unnecessary because a banner which carries a specific
message is permissible.
2.
Com.;ideration of a zoning ordinance amcndment that would allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with
promotional signage fees.
Under the present ordinance, there is a one~time annual fee of $5 to
cover the 20-day period proposed for display of portable signslbanners.
It is suggested that no changes be made to this particular requirement,
which requires the business OWl1(~r to submit a single application for a
portable sign or banner.
The current ordinance requires that an application form be used to
identify particular times of the year that a portable sign will be in use.
Obviously, it is maybe difficult for a business owner to say exactly when
or how long each banner will be displayed during a 40-day period
allowed. It is proposed that the ordinance and associated process for
administering the permitting process be changcd to require an applicant
simply to keep a daily log of banner use. From time to time, the
Building Inspector can spot check individual husinesses to makc sure
thE~y are documenting the days when the sign is displayed. The form
would be used to identify the type of banner displayed and to document
each day that the banner is up. Once a total of 40 days have been used
up, the banner can no longer be displayed at the location identified in
Page 4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
the annual permit. As a clarification to the existing ordinance, the
process includes permitting for decorative attention-getting devices.
Attention-getting devices are permitted on an individual hasis for a
maximum period of10 days with a minimum period of180 days between
consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel.
3.
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow a
permit fl)f promotional signagelbauner for 2 weeks out of every month
or for a total of 168 days a year.
This was part of the original request as submitted by the applicants.
City staff is proposing that the days be increased from 20 days to 40
total days in a calendar year.
Cindy Lemm then opened the puhlic hearing. Comments raised from the
public were as follows.
Larry Nordman, Monticello Vacuum Center, commented on there should be no
sign limit or limitation of hanners, let husinesses do as they please.
Ron Chios, Ceneral Rental, indicated that Monticello and St. Cloud are the
only communities that require a permit for a portable sign/banner. He felt
that portable signs and/or banners should be allowed to be put up at any time.
There being no further input from the puhlic, the public hearing was closed,
and the meeting was opened for further input from the Planning Commission
members.
ConcenlS of the Planning Commission members with only two businesses
represented out of several businesses in Monticello, they agreed to continue the
public hearing for one more month until their next regularly scheduled
meeting and to schedule this for the first agenda item on the agenda.
A motion was made by .J on Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the
consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment allowing banners and portable
signs to be displayed for 40 days per year and continue the public hearing until
the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, ~June 1, 1993, beginning at
7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf absent.
8.
ConsidE~ration of a petition for extension of conditional use permit allowing a
public works building in a PZM zone. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the Monticello Public
Works Department requests the City consider granting an extension of time
in which to complete the public works facility. According to city ordinance,
Page 5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
whenever within one year of granting a conditional use permit the work as
permitted by the permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall
become null and void unless a petition for an extension of time in which to
complete the work has been granted by the City Council.
It is requested that the conditional use permit be granted to include
construction of the development of the entire site, which includes three phases
of construction.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Commission members.
There being no comments from the Planning Commission members, a motion
was made by Hichard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to grant a one-
year extension to the conditional use permit allowing the public works facility
to be constructed in a PZM zone. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent.
9.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to adjourn
the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf absent. The
meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~.~
Gary nderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 6