Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-18-1995 . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 18, 1995.7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Richard Martie Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer, Steve Grittman 1. The meetin!! was called to order bv Chairman Dick Frie at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consideration of approval of minutes for rel!Ular meetin!! held March 7. 1995. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 7, 1995 MEETING. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearin!! - Consideration of a variance request to the setback minimums that would allow construction of a double-car !!ara!!e. Applicant. Dennis Anderson. Gary Anderson, Building Official, explained that when the public hearing notice was prepared and sent for publication, an encroachment into the front yard setback should have also been included in the public hearing notice in addition to the rear yard setback. However, the intent of the public hearing notification requirement had been demonstrated via the notice sent out, therefore no additional notice will be sent out. The applicant is proposing to build an attached garage onto the front of his existing garage, with its proposed location to be within 4 ft of the required 10-ft side yard setback requirement and 22 ft 6 in from the required 30-ft front yard setback. Mr. Anderson's situation is somewhat similar to other structures in the inner city in the Lower Monticello and Original Plat additions where the house and/or garage were placed where they wanted to place them on the lots. In Mr. Anderson' situation, the existing house and garage were centered on the lot with no consideration for future expansion of the garage. By today's standards, a single-car garage with 12-ft width is inadequate. Anderson's house does line up with the other houses on the block. Typically, when considering a variance request within a setback requirement, especially a front yard setback, the closest one can come forward with an addition in the front yard that is equal with the existing houses on either side if they were the same or half the difference between Page 1 . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04118/95 setback of his residence and an adjoining residents on either side of him. However, in Anderson's case he's proposing to come forward farther than any of the houses in that block which is inconsistent with the ordinance and there is no precedent for granting this variance. The encroachment into the minimum 10-ft side yard has been allowed many times before by the Monticello Planning Commission when it has been demonstrated that a variance is necessary to enable development of a two car garage. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dennis Anderson told the Commission that he bought the house originally for a temporary place to live. His family likes the house and location so he has started remodeling. The single-car garage is not big enough. There is room in the back of his lot but the driveway would be expensive because of the length. Anderson stated he would like the Commissioner's views. Chairman Frie, inquired if there were any neighbors at the hearing with input. The neighbors were not in attendance at the meeting. . The Commissioners discussed the variance and did not have a problem with the side setback but the variance for the front setback would be a problem. A front yard setback variance of this magnitude has never been granted in the past. Granting a variance in this case would set a bad precedent and impair the intent of the ordinance. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A 6-FT VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE SIDE YARD MINIMUM SETBACK, WHICH WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE CAR GARAGE BUT TO DENY A 22 FT 6 IN VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK MINIMUM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE- CAR GARAGE. MOTION TO APPROVE THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO CAR GARAGE. MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT SIGHTLINE PROBLEMS WOULD BE CREATED THUS AFFECTING THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BETTER CHOICES FOR THE APPLICANT IS TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE REAR. THEREFORE, AN OPTION FOR BUILDING A TWO CAR GARAGE IS AVAILABLE AND NO HARDSHIP DEMONSTRATED. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. VOTING IN FAVOR: FRIE, MARTIE. ABSTAINED: CARLSON. . Page 2 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04118/95 4. Public HearinlZ - Consideration of a variance reauest to the side yard setback reauirement for a driveway. Location is Lot 1. Block 2. Creekside Terrace. Subsequent to filing of application, the applicant withdrew this request because the property sold. 5. Public HearinlZ - Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit allowinl! a l!arden center in a B-4 zonine district. Applicant. Cedar Street Garden Center. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that Cedar Street Garden Center (Formerly "Fair's") had applied for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit originally issued to their predecessor "Fair's Garden Center" in 1989. The purpose of the amendment is to relocate rock bins from the Broadway frontage to the northeast corner of the site, currently devoted to equipment storage. The rock bins would be replaced with additional parking. No other changes are proposed at this time. Amendments to Conditional Use Permits are processed as if they were new applications. The amendment to the garden center Conditional Use Permit is an opportunity to remove an incompatible use from the Broadway Street frontage, in addition, the expansion of the off-street parking should serve to reduce congestion in the area during peak season of use, and reduce the potential for adverse impacts from Wlpaved areas in and near the Central Business District. Grittman also discussed Cedar Street Garden Center's freestanding sign which is situated in a non-conforming location adjacent to the Broadway Street right of way. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires a setback for such signs of fifteen feet from the property line. Modification of the sign will likely be proposed by the new operators to reflect the name change. According to staff information, the sign was not granted any special permission to be located within the required sign setback. As such, the location of this sign would need to be addressed in order to be able to make a finding that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will meet the standard of the Zoning Ordinance, a typical factor in the City's consideration of such permits. There are three possibilities which the Planning Commission may wish to consider: 1. The sign be relocated to meet the required fifteen foot setback. It may require the elimination of one of the parking spaces. 2. A variance from the sign setback requirements. A variance will require a finding of special conditions relating to a non- Page 3 . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04/18/95 economical physical hardship which would otherwise preclude compliance with the performance standards. 3. An amendment to the sign regulations relating to freestanding sign setbacks. There may be some justification in this alternative in that which freestanding signs are required to be set back fifteen feet from the right of way, building can be constructed with a zero setback in this zoning district. Tying the sign setbacks to building setbacks may be reasonable approach which the Planning Commission should discuss. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Leslie Delisi, owner of Cedar Street Garden Center, told the Commission that all the requirements on the Conditional Use Permit would remain the same except for moving the bins. The reason for moving the rock bins was for site appeal from Broadway and to improve the traffic flow in the parking lot. Also, Delisi has been working with a sign company on changing the current sign and would like the Planning Commission to direct her on this issue. . Chairman Frie closes the public hearing. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, stated that there is a need to address the setbacks for pylon signs and suggested a public hearing be called for on this issue because it is not limited to the Garden Center's sign but other signs in this area as well. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE GARDEN CENTER DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED CONDITION OF THE ORIGINAL CUP ISSUED IN 1989. 2. THE AREA FROM WHICH THE ROCK BINS ARE BEING REMOVED IS TO BE PAVED AND CURBED, PER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND PER THE EXPECTATION OF THE 1989 PERMIT APPROVAL. . Page 4 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04/18/95 3. THE AREA SURROUNDING THE NEW ROCK BIN LOCATION IS DETERMINED TO BE ADEQUATELY SCREEN AT PRESENT, OR ADDITIONAL SCREENING EFFORTS ARE REQUIRED. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONSISTENT OR IMPROVES ON THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF PYLON SIGNS IN THE B4 ZONING DISTRICT. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passes unanimously. 6. Public Hearing: - Consideration of adopting: an ordinance amendment providing for interim uses. Applicant Jav Morrell. 7. Public Hearing: - Consideration of adopting: an ordinance amendment establishing outside storag:e as an interim uses. Applicant. Jav Morrell. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of e:rantin2 an interim use permit to allow outside storage as an interim use at Lot 2. Block 3. Oakwood Industrial park. Applicant. Jav Morrell. These three items were not published by the Monticello Times; therefore, the public hearing cannot be held at this time on these three items and must be continued to the next meeting. 9. Review comprehensive planing: proe:ress. A. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan will involve a summary of the issues developed in the Tactics and Inventory phases. The effort will be to distill the information gleaned from the physical inventory and the informational interviews into usable data on which the City can make decisions. For instance, one of the most thoroughly discussed issues in the Tactics interviews was the community's housing supply. There is a wide range of issues associated with housing, all of which will require the City to set a defined path throughout goals, objectives, and policies. These include the range of housing choices in the community, the range of housing growth, types of housing, active or passive involvement of the City in housing development, issues Page 5 . B. . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04118/95 relating to affordable housing, and other demographically defined issues such as senior housing. The next step in the Comprehensive Plan would be to schedule a joint workshop with the City Council, HRA, Parks Commission, and Planning Commission. DICK FRIE, CHAIRMAN, MADE A MOTION TO MEET WITH THE HRA AT THEIR FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING TIME AND DISCUSS THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, AND THE CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT EFFORTS TO COORDINATE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. Receive an update on the status of the ordinance amendment regulating pole buildings in the business campus and business district. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported on the status of pole buildings in the Business Campus and Business District. He directed the Planning Commission to decide if the pole buildings issue should be studied in the comprehensive plan process or if the Planning Commission is concerned about the possibility of pole buildings to be built this year. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of pole building construction and decided this issue would best be handled through the comprehensive plan process. They would like Steve Grittman to develop five or six statements that could be looked at during the workshop sessions. C. Review Shadow Pines development proposal. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, informed the Planning Commission that this is just an informational report so as the comprehensive plan is developed this area is addressed. It is a 40 acre site south of Oakwood Drive West and West of Highway 25 in the urban service area which is relatively easy to annex. The development of this area would not be until about 1998 but there is still the problem of the waste water treatment plant. Tom Holthouse, Value Plus Homes, described the development to be comparable to the Par West area townhomes. There would be a combination of four-unit upper scale townhomes and upper scale Page 6 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04118/95 single family homes. The area is zoned for business now and would need to be rezoned to residential. Holthouse suggested this be looked at during the comprehensive planning process because the location is a distance from Highway 25 and might be better served as a residential area. Dan Frie, Wright Sherburne Realty, this development was also shown to the Industrial Development Committee with regards to an industrial park south of this development. One of the main reasons this was brought to the meeting was for information on the waste water treatment schedule. Would it be advisable to continue with the development plans or wait? O'Neill noted that the land use questions relating to the Shadow Pines development area will be a major topic to cover as part of the comprehensive plan update process. As part of the process, the City will be seeking input from the developers as well as input from the IDC and others interested in creating the best possible mixed land uses in the area. The Planning Commission at this point could not give direction to the development of Shadow Pines until there is a decision from the City Council regarding the study of the wastewater treatment plant's capacity. There was concern that the area surrounding the development is zoned industrial and commercial and might not be the ideal location for a residential development but this could be studied during the comprehensive plan process. D. Discuss Planning Commission involvement in preparation of an updated capital improvement plan and consider providing input on HRA/City Council use of pooled TIF funds. O'Neill reported that the HRA is in the process of developing a TIF plan for utilization of pooled funds. This plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the comprehensive plan. He noted that the Planning Commission could provide input of the TIF plans as part of the up coming joint meeting. E. Update: City/School District efforts to coordinate facilities development. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that a committee of Dick Frie, Planning Commission Chairman; Clint Herbst, City Page 7 . . . 10. Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04118/95 eouncil; Bruce Theilen, Parks Commission Chairman; and Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator; met with the school district on the coordination of the joint facilities development. The school district was open to discussion with the City but at this point was still in the preliminary stages. The next meeting would be April 26th at 7:00 p.m. After the joint meeting, May 3rd, with the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks eommission, and HRA a better direction from the City could be taken. Review conditional use permit enforcement issues. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, in the past the city has been handling conditional use permit enforcement issues on a case by case basis when is a complaint. It is impossible at this time for the staff to spend adequate time in this area because new construction has taken priority. One thing that could be done is an inventory of the problem cases that the Planning Commission could go through. The Planning Commission requested staff to assemble a list of enforcement issues of current conditional use permits. 11. Consideration of establishine: date for tour of Orrin Thompson development. Orrin Thompson requested the city and township to tour the area they are looking into developing. Even though the wastewater treatment plant might force a moratorium on new construction the commissioners thought this would be a worthwhile trip. The date for the tour is tentatively set for May 24th, this day would be kept even if the township does not attend. 12. Review Monticello Chamber of Commerce proposal to display a permanent reader board at the intersection of State Hie:hwav 25 and Broadway. Consideration of calline: for a public hearin!:! on ordinance amendments necessarv to accommodate reauest - Steve Grittman. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that the Chamber of Commerce is proposing to display a permanent reader board at the intersection of State Highway 25 and Broadway. The sign would be three-sided, 10 feet high, and located in "court yard" area on the side of the chamber building. The Chamber would contract with a person who makes signs, there would be no administration by the chamber. The fee for advertising on the sign would be approximately $25. It is an off premiss sign that would need an ordinance amendment to allow. Page 8 . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04/18/95 The Planning Commission discussed the reader board and decided that the idea was good but the design proposed at that location was not the best. The sign location could cause viability problems when turning, the sign location would be hard to read while driving by, and would not enhance the courtyard effect that the Park's Commission recommended for the comer. The Planning Commission directed the Chamber of Commerce to act within the current ordinance that does allow an elevated pylon sign or wall sign. Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced Richard McLaughlin, Northwest Consultants, to the Commission. If Grittman is Wlable to attend a Planning Commission meeting Mr. McLaughlin would attend in his place. 13. Ad10urnment DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Respectfully submitted, . uJO;Y1do. )<4i1P4N/\_ Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician . Page 9