Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-04-1990 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 4, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at 7:03 p.m. 2. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 7, 1990. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon abstaining. 3. Public hearinq--A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two residential lots. Applicant, Michael Robinson. . Gary Anderson, zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Robinson's simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of land into two residential unplatted tracts of land. Both Parcels A and B would have more than the minimum lot square footage requirement of 12,000 square feet, and Parcel B would have the minimum lot width on a public right-of-way of 80 feet. Parcel A would have 70 feet of lot width, which is less than the required minimim lot width on a public right-of- way. At the front setback line of Parcel A, which would be the front most portion of the house, there would be 68 feet of lot width. Six-foot drainage and utility easements are shown on the side lot lines of the newly created parcels, and l2-foot drainage and utility easements are shown on the front and rear of the proposed subdivided parcels. Parcel A is not served by a city water and sewer stub at this time. If one is to be put in, the City would not be responsible for the installation. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Robinson explained that his family is currently living in the existing two-bedroom house. He and his wife have three children, and it is quite crowded in the existing house. His request is to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels and build another house on the adjoining parcel to the south or to sell the residential parcel. The lots are considerably larger than the platted 66' x 165' standard inner city lots. Mr. Robinson also explained he would be willing . page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 . to record with the simple subdivision that any house built on Parcel A would be within the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Robinson also indicated he would have no problem with removing the shed on Parcel A within 30 days of the sale of the lot. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for input from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members questioned whether the creation of a smaller lot would diminish the aesthetics or property values of the existing houses situated on larger lots across the street. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two residential lots with the following conditions: a. The simple subdivision request is to be recorded within 30 days from the September 10, 1990, City Council meeting. b. The drainage and utility easements are to be recorded wi thin 30 days from the september 10, 1990, City Council meeting. . c. A document is be recorded indicating that Parcel A is not served by city water and sewer service, and the City will not be responsible for putting one in. d. A document is be recorded indicating that if a new house is built on Parcel A, it will meet all the minimum setback requirements. e. A document Parcel A is Parcel A is sale. is be recorded indicating that if sold, the existing shed located on to be removed within 30 days of the Motion carried unanimously. . Page 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 4. Public hearinq~-A variance request to allow a subdivided lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. Applicant, Michael Robinson. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Robinson's variance request to allow less than the minimum lot width on a public right-of-way. As shown on the enclosed site plan, there is 70 feet of lot frontage at the front property line; and at the minimum front yard setback requirement, which is in line with the front most portion of the existing house located on Parcel B, the lot width would be 68 feet. The standard lot width of the platted inner city lots is 66 feet. When the ordinance was amended, the City cited problems with the smaller lot width; therefore, the minimum lot width was increased to 80 feet. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and turned the meeting to discussion amongst Planning commission members. Planning Commission members recognized that the lot width was considerably less than our current 80-foot minimum requirement, but it is more than the minimum lot width that was required when the original lots were platted within the city. If the applicant would be willing to have a document recorded stating that any house built would be wi thin the minimum setback requirements, they did not see any problem with granting the variance. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the variance request to allow a subdivided lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: Due to the increased square footage of Parcel A (16,530 sq ft) from the minimum 12,000 sq ft requirement, the impact has been lessened, therefore supporting approval of the variance request. 5. Public hearinq--A variance request to allow additional pylon siqn heiqht than the maximum 22-foot pylon heiqht allowed. Applicant, Mark Anderson. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Anderson's request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than 22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-ot-way. Mr. Anderson's Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 . proposal was for a l3-foot height variance for a total height of 45 feet. Mr. 0' Neill explained to Planning Commission members the City Council action that was taken on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. . Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to explain to Planning Commission members and the public his rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He explained that a good share of his business would be in the form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other eating establishments or local residents but to attract people traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his primary exposure would be the east bound 1-94 traffic and the people exiting the first exit off 1-94, and he acknowledged the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at the 45-foot height. He also explained that some exposure would be gained from the west bound traffic on 1-94 if the sign was placed at the 45-foot height. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon sign height as do other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. . Page 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area, as no hardship was sufficiently demonstrated. 6 . Public hearing--A variance request to allow no curbing in a certain area of a parkinq lot. A request to allow less than the minimum required tree planting size. Applicant, Tapper's, Inc. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Tapper's request to allow no curbing in a certain area of a parking lot. The area in question would be for parking lot expansion at some point in time in the future. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, he closed the public hearing and asked for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members agreed that this would be acceptable as long as it did not affect the drainage. The City's consulting engineering firm, OSM, reviewed this request and felt drainage would not be affected by no curbing in this area. They also discussed approving the variance for up to three years. If at that time there was no building addition or parking lot expansion, the applicant would come back for review of the variance request and ask for additional time. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the variance request to allow no curbing in a certain area of a parking lot with the applicant to come back within three years, September 1993, to renew hi s reques t if the applicant has not expanded his parking lot. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: The City's consulting engineer, after review of the drainage as shown, felt that there would be no adverse effects by no curbing in this portion of the parking lot. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Tapper's request to allow less than the minimum required overstory tree planting size. The total number of trees that would be less than the minimum 2-1/2 inch diameter would be 14. The total number of trees that are required to be planted is 24. Mr. Tapper is proposing to plant 28 total trees. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 . Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Tapper indicated they would like to have more trees than what is required to better complement the landscaping layout as presented. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for further discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt there would be no problem with granting the request if the developer is willing to put in more trees than the minimum required and they are only 1/2-inch in diameter less than the minimum requirement. Motion was made by Jon Bogart, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow less than the minimum required tree planting size. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: Because the applicant is proposing to plant more trees than required, and because there is only a 1/2-inch difference between what is required and the diameter of the trees to be planted, the impact, if any, as the trees develop would be very minimal. . Exception to all areas not otherwise improved in accordance with approved site plans shall be sodded. 1) The applicant is proposinq undisturbed areas containinq existinq viable and natural veqetation which can be maintained free of foreign and noxious plant materials. 2) The areas desiqnated as open ~ce or future expansion areas properly planted and maintained with prairie qrass. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Tapper's request to allow certain areas of their open space to be planted and maintained in native prairie grass and wild flower plantings. Mr. 0' Neill referred to Mr. Kevin Norby, the landscape architect for Tapper's, Inc., to explain the areas in which they are proposing to plant the prairie grass and wild flowers. Mr. Norby explained to Planning Commission members and the public the landscaping plan which his firm has designed for Tapper's, Inc., for planting certain areas of the site with a native prairie grass and different species of wild flowers. Mr. Norby highlighted the areas in which the proposed plantings were to take place and the areas that would be planted under the conventional method of shrubs and landscaping rocks, sod, or seed. Mr. Norby indicated the company which would be supplying and installing the native . Page 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 prairie and wild flower seedings would be Prairie Restorations, Inc., of Princeton, Minnesota. They also have a contract for one year's maintenance of the plantings once they are installed. There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for discussion amongst the Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members were concered about how the native prairie grasses and wild flowers were to be planted and maintained and the heights which would be achieved at maximum planting height. Another concern was how these plantings would reflect our current public nuisance ordinance regarding maximum grass height. There being no further discussion amongst the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson, to recommend to the City Council the planting of native prairie grass and species of wild flowers in certain areas of the Tapper's, Inc., building site as defined in their landscaping plan. Motion carried unanimously. 7 . Public hearing--A conditional use request to allow expansion of an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, General Rental. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Chihos' request to expand an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business) zone. While showing a video of the property, Mr. 0' Neill explained where Mr. Chihos has expanded his display of equipment into the green area and into the public right-of-way in front of his lot. In reviewing Mr. Chihos' original conditional use request, there were very few, if any, conditions other than what was required of him as conditions to his conditional use permit. Mr. O'Neill indicated that possibly there should be some additional conditions added to Mr. Chihos' conditional use request for expansion of his rental business. Under condition #1, the outside services, sales, and equipment rental connected with a principal use is limited to 30% of the gross floor area, which is 720 sq ft. The area Mr. Chihos would like to use for outside display of rental equipment would be approximately 5,500 sq ft; therefore, he is requesting an additional 4,780 sq ft. Page 7 Planning commission Minutes - 9/4/90 . . Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Ron Chihos, part owner of General Rental, explained to Planning Commission members his conditional use request to expand his rental business in the B- 3 (highway business) zone. Mr. Chihos indicated the additional 25 feet of lot width on the northerly portion of the property would allow the existing U-Haul trucks and trailers to be parked at an angle on this 25-foot portion which he is purchasing from the owners of the adjoining property. Also, by creating this 25-foot area for parking the U-Haul trucks and trailers, it would also open up the area for parking and within his parking lot. The biggest problem that Mr. Chihos encounters when his customers pick up or drop off equipment and have a trailer behind their vehicle is that it's very tough to maneuver and get out of the parking lot. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members discussed how the green area has been diminshed because it has been used for parking rental equipment. If the area is to be opened up and returned to a green area, it should also meet the minimum requirements of landscaping. The minimum number of overstory trees to be planted would be 5 with the 25-foot lot expansion. The curbing in the easterly portion of the lot could be expanded to within 5 feet of the property line to allow display of rental equipment as long as it did not use any of the off- street parking requirements. There being no further input from the public, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to approve the condi tional use request to allow expansion of an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business) zone with the following conditions: 1. The 5-foot green area is to be maintained with no parking of rental equipment in the 5-foot green area between the property line and the parking lot curbing. 2. A m~n~mum of five overstory trees are to be planted, preferably along the northerly property line. 3. The area for display of the rental equipment is to be hard surfaced. . Page 8 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 4. The square footage of the rental storage area is to be increased from the minimum amount of 720 sq ft to 5,500 sq ft of outdoor rental display square footage area. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public hearing--A conditional use request to allow a used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Mr. O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members the applicant did not supply the information as needed in a timely manner and asked that the public hearing be opened and continued. It was the consensus of the five Planning Commission members that the item be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting in October. 9 . Public hearing--A variance request to allow less than the minimum 4,500 sq ft sales and display area. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members the applicant had failed to submit the information needed in a timely manner and asked that the public hearing be opened and continued until the next meeting in October. The consensus of the five Planning Commission members was to open the public hearing and continue it until the October Planning Commission meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members a proposed amendment to the sign ordinance. He explained that he would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission members to pass on to the City Council as to whether or not the sign ordinance should be amended. The ordinance section for Planning Commission members to consider amending would be the portion in which an existing non-conforming sign cannot be changed to another non- conforming sign. Under the current sign ordinance, the existing sign faces can be removed and a new one put in place even though it is not the same company or business that is changing the sign face. This is allowed under the permit Page 9 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 process. The proposed ordinance amendment would require that if only a new face was installed on an existing non-conforming sign, the non-conforming sign would have to be brought into conformance or a permit would not be granted. Much discussion centered around if this was actually a permit requirement or if someone could go ahead and do it without a permit. The general consensus of the Planning Commission members present was to propose an ordinance amendment that a permit would be required if the sign face is changed on a non- conforming sign, and no permit would be allowed for the sign face change unless they go through the variance process or the non-conforming sign is brought into compliance prior to changing the sign face. 2. Consideration of a variance request which would allow a parking perimeter to be established without curb in a location within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 3. Consideration of a variance request to allow development of a driveway area without hard surface. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service. Council action: Denied the request; hard surfacing to be required in the far east portion of the loading/ unloading area. 4. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in parking lot design requirements. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service. Council action: Approved with conditions. 5. Consideration of approval of a preliminary plat of the Sandberg East Second Addition, which is a replat of the Sandberg East subdivision. Applicant, John Sandberg. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 6. Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson, to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 2, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm absent. 7. Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gar~~e~l Zoning Administrator Page 10