Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-04-2005 (2) . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4th, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spaliz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: JetlO'Neill, Fred Patch, Stcve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Ollie Koropchak 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum. 2. Approval ofthe Ininutes orthe regular Planning: Commission meeting: held 'Tuesday, September 6th, 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6th, 2005. . . MO'TION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Frie requested that introductions to the new City Engineer and Building Inspector be added to the agenda in November. O'Neill agreed. 4. Citizen conllnents. Bill Tapper, 3935 Walnut Lane, Deephaven, addressed the Commission. Tapper requested that the Planning Commission consider recommending that he be allowed to plant prairie grass at 1320 Edmonson, on top of the berm he constructed as a condition of his CU P. Tapper noted that the ordinance requires that the Commission make a recommendation to the Council on such matters. Patch stated that the ordinance section involved relates to sodding and ground cover. He stated that the ordinance provides for prairie grass based on the recommendation of Commission. Patch referred to the location of Tapper's site and the recent addition. Patch explained that the benn is between Edmonson and the loading dock area. The Commission had previously considered and recommended approval ofthe CUP with a landscape plan for the berm. Patch stated that staff have no objection to this request. . Frie asked ifthis needed a formal application. Patch stated that the way the ordinance reads, it is a simple verbal recommendation. Patch inquired whether Tapper would keep the evergreen trees. Tapper confirmed they would. Patch indicated that the prairie grass would provide additional screening as well. Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Spartz asked how much area the grass would cover. Tapper stated that he would like to plant it on the berm and around the back of the building. He noted that prairie grass is expensive to seed and requires annual maintenance annually. Tapper stated that they would complete this maintenance and plant lilacs in addition to the cvcrgreens. Frie noted that in some areas of the trail system, the City had planted prairie grass. Frie asked which side of the building he would be continuing the grass. Tapper stated that it would be the east side. Suchy asked iftherc wcrc any drawbaeks to this planting. Patch stated there were not. Posusta asked what the black dots shown on the plan indicated. Tappcr stated that they are existing evergrecns. Posusta stated that the burning along new areas seem to be taking a toll on the evergreens. Tapper stated that was due to the northwest winds. MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPERTY AT 1320 EDMONSON BE ALLOWED TO USE PRAIRIE GRASS AS AN APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING ELEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning: Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applieant: City of Monticello . Grittman out1 ined for the Commission the proceedings of the outdoor storage amendment process to date. Hc explained that the amendment originated out of questions relating to setbaeks on an application for outdoor storage. A taskforce was formed in response and the City held a series of meetings over an II-month period. Out of those meetings, Grittman reporied that staff generated a draft ordinance. However, there were sti II somc issues of contention and the consensus that had been reached seemed to dissolve. Grittman stated that essentially, staff felt it would be worthwhile to bring to the Commission the two options that had evolved. Grittman reported that one was the reeommendation presented by the IDC and the other was prepared by staff. The end result seems to be far afield of where this discussion had stalied, whieh was to address the ambiguity related to setbacks. Grittman reviewed the IDC version, staying that wh i Ie it has it merits, it creates problems relating to enforcement. Staffs ordinance does present more enforceability, but creates new ordinance standards. Grittman indicated that staff is also offering the option for the Commission to leave the ordinance as is and not take any action. Grittman commented that the ordinance in place is relatively simple, requires a CUP for any industrial outdoor storage, and requires sercening from residential areas and ROW. Grittman stated that apart from occasional bumps, that ordinance has performed reasonably well. It may be that the proposed amendments tackle too much. He notcd that struggles with the application of the ordinance are relativcly rare. Chairman Frie opcncd the publie hearing. . Bill Tapper, owner of properties at 212 Chelsea and 1320 Edmonson, stated that he is concerned about dropping th is effort. He stated that hc docsn 't think that staff and the industries are that far apart in terms of a resolution. Tapper stated that there are sti II concerns about what can and cannot be done with outdoor storage. He indicated that it his perspective that this discussion needs to continue. 2 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Tapper stated that he has a number of on-going issues with the staff proposal. In partieular, he cited definitions, such as view of storage at eye-level at property line. He questioned the use of the term "eye-level". He also noted that measurement from property line is difficult, as one needs to see a surveyor to determine a property line. Tapper noted that there seems to be a major reluctance from staff to allow storage of materials bcyond the height ofthe screen. Tapper commentcd that it secms that the vast majority of storage causing concern would be below ground level. Tapper stated that the City should define all of the equipment that business uses, including trash handling equipment. He also indicated that he doesn't like the chain link fenee with slats as a screening option, as they are unattractive. He believes that staffs ordinance seems to encourage them. The staff ordinanee also docsn't provide for viewing angles. Tapper indieated that if we're concerned about views straight on, we should also be concerned from the side and behind. He stated that he doesn't see how semi-trailers are ditlerent fj'om other equipment. In conclusion, Tapper stated that the City needs an ordinance that is well defined, that tells property owners what they can do, is enforceable, and recognizes real life needs. Jay Morrell spoke to the Commission, supporting what Tapper stated. Morrell referenced some of the past issues that have come before the Commission. Morrell stated that when the possibility of amending the ordinanee eame up, the IDC weleomed the chanee to have input. Morrell thanked the Comm issioners and Council for their time spent on this matter. Morrell stated that he believes there is room for compromise. Morrell reeommended that Commission set a timeline for a workable solution. . Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies, spoke representing Monticello Commeree Center. Pfeffer stated that it is his impression that most ofthc issues in question relate to the 1-2 district. Pfeffer statcd that in his experience, the main issues for industrial users in terms of outdoor storage are seeurity, storm water, and dust control. There are silos, trash cOlnpactors, etc., that are critical to business. Pfeffer noted that thc currcnt controversy deals with owner- occupicd and singlc tenant buildings. He stated that over timc, thc storage needs are going to change and affect the ordinance. Pfcffer requested that if Commission is going to requirc screening, they should think about seeurity. Hc notcd that chain link is appropriate when cons ideri ng security. Pfefter recommended that a CUP eontinue to be used in the I-I, I-I A districts. Frie asked if Pfeffer had attended the meetings. Pfeffer indicated he was at the last meeting. Suchy stated that she had thc opportunity to visit different industrial areas. Suchy commented that she believes the 1-2 should be allowcd to do their business without much rcstriction, but that it should bc different in I-I, I-I A areas. As far as the height, Suchy dosn't think the outdoor storage was that much of an cyesore. Suchy stated that the 1-2 area is a vcry spccific area and we need to allow greatcr flcxibility in that area. Spartz statcd that a goal of the amendment was to not handcuff the businesses. Spartz indicatcd that while the City wants to allow businesses to do their business, we need to allow thc City to enforce something in terms of buffering, etc. He does believe therc is room between the City and the mc' s proposal. Frie asked Grittman to respond to the publie's comments. . Grittnlan referred to the original ordinance that staff developed after the first couple of meetings in contrast to the existing ordinance. All three industrial districts currently require a CUP, and require storage to be screencd from rcsidential and ROWs. Grittman rcported that 3 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . the issucs the task forcc raised involved sctbacks and storage areas, as well as thc need for CUPs in [-2 districts and handling of equipment. Grittman stated that what staff did in response was draft an ordinance that brought those barriers down. Grittman revicwed the proposed amendment elements. [n an 1-2, outdoor storage would be permitted with zcro setback in side and rear yards. He stated that is was the consensus of the task force at the first meeting stated that storage didn't need to be in the front yard. The amendment does require screening if across from residential property. However, if abutting another 1-2 or 1-1 industrial district, no screening was needed in 1-2 areas. Finally, Grittman stated that the proposed amendment allowed occupation of drainage and utility easements in I-I and 1-2 districts. In summary, staff felt they rclaxed the standards quite a bit for the 1-2 district. He noted that the ordinance also defined screening. (jrittman then reviewed the proposed amendment for the I-I and I-I A districts. In those areas, there are limits on outdoor storage as noted. Grittman stated that there are still obviously some disagrecments about how scrcening is defined and where it is measures from. Grittman stated that the IDC thought a 6-foot screen should bc acceptable regardless of the height of storage. Staffs concern is the problem of unsightlincss, not the storage itself. Grittman explained that the problenl is that the violators don't worry about neatncss. GriUman statcd that it is his pcrsonal feeling that thc way the current ordinance is written, hc doesn't know the application has caused that great of a problem. . Frie asked whether thc IDC and staff agreed on the need for scrccning. Grittman stated that hc thinks they arc in agreement that thcre is a need for screening, but disagrcc as to in what circumstance and how it should be measured and defined. Frie statcd that he visited with two IDC mell1bcrs, who suggestcd that the height of screening at 6 feet is acceptable. Tappcr stated that the IDC recommendation is a working recommendation. The philosophy was that the things that really nccd to be screened happen at a lower level. Fric stated that Commission does consider the type of environment when evaluating these issues. Fric stated that thc amendment that Commission is attempting to develop has to focus on overall industrial areas, not individual businesses. Fric indicated that he bclieved there were four primary issues to be addressed: screcning, definitions, mcasurement, and wastc handl ing. I-Ie asked ifthosc four issues had bcen addressed. Tappcr stated they were discussed, but staff and industry seem to be in differing opinions. Dragsten inquired about the hours of truck parking within the current ordinance. Grittman responded that those had bccn proposed in the staff amendment as an excmption from thc outdoor storage requirements. Tapper had referred to it in terms of enforceabil ity in hours. Grittman stated that thcy unless they are in a dock, they are subject to outdoor storage requircments. Frie stated that jfthcre are interpretation problems, then there are clarity issues that need refinement. Tapper stated that hc believes there are problems, including that as he understands the amendnlcnt, a company like Sunny Fresh would be considered outdoor storagc in terms ofthcir rooftop systems Grittman stated that thcre is an item in the ordinance spccific to rooftop scrccning. Dragsten stated that it seems as though thcy agree on most itcms, perhaps in one more meeting, they could iron out these items. Hilgart agreed. . Frie askcd about the refcrcnce to enforceability on the IDC's recommendation. Tappcr stated that he hopes that the opposite would occur. He stated that cnforceability was a legal opinion and he couldn't comment on that. 4 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Frie stated that he was disappointed that there were two separate drafts. Therefore, he supports Dragsten and Hilgart an requesting another meeting. Posusta stated that it seems the only difference between the two is verbage. Posusta stated it doesn't need to be made more complicated than it needs to be. Posusta commented that the other thing that needs to be talked about is accessory storage buildings to the main structure. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION RY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CONTINUE 'n-IE ACTION ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION RY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A 90-DAY TIME LIMIT THE CONTINUATION. MOTION TO AMEND SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Morrell requested that staff schedule and notice the meeting well in advance. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of pvlon signage. Applicant: City of Monticello . With no one being present to provide comment during the public hearing, Chairman Frie moved this item to number 14 on the agenda. 7. Consideration to review for final approval the development stage PUD for Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. Applicant: IRET Properties Grittman presented the staff report for the item, illustrating the site and landscape plan for the project. Grittman explained that the applicants have provided quite a bit of inforlnation, as requested. However, the signage question is still an issue. In summarizing the proposal, Grittnlall stated that there are three signs on the Holiday canopy, each at 38 feet; a Iloliday pantry sign at 31 feet; and three signs on the Wendy's building fayade, each at 42 feet. Finally, the applicants are combining to request a high rise pylon to provide identitlcation. It would be ajoint sign with an electronic readerboard, with a total sign area of392 square feet. The signage on this site totals 663 square feet, which is more than what is allowed for multi- tenant commercial sites. There are seven signs proposed, and only four allowed by code. The pylon is proposed at 57', although the ordinance allows for 32' in height with 200' offace area, and that includes freeway bonus allowances. Grittman noted that the applicants are looking to exceed code requirements by the use of a PUD. . Grittman explained that in exchange, the appl icants propose a significant amount of increased landscaping and architectural enhancements to the fueling area. Grittman reported that when staff lnet with the applicants, they were looking for oversized signage and looked to staff for trade-off enhancements. Grittman stated that while the applicants were looking for an endorsement, which staff could not provide for the signage, staff did provide suggestions for architectural and landseaping enhancements that could be made as a PUD consideration. Grittlnan stated that staff still believe the sign ordinance isn't set up to allow thc PUD to flex in this way. In fact, thc sign ordinance was rcccntly amended to avoid just this type of 5 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . flexing. Grittman noted that the amendment actually allowed more signage flexibility for new businesses. Grittnlan indicated that staff recommends that the current ordinance is acceptable for thc purposes ofthis application. Ifthc Commission does want to use PUD to flex sign standards, a monument would be a better use. In vicwing the site from the freeway, in both directions, the pylon sign wouldn't be particularly visible. The monument would do a better job at the intersection. Staff recommends two monument signs and the wall signs as proposed. Frie asked if staff's primary concern is signage. Frie stated his focus is consistency. There are half a dozen signs at more than 32' already in the area. He stated that he took a trip along 1-94 and noted that every community from St. Cloud to Maple Grove has this type of proposed signage. Prie questioned whether the City ordinance is out of line. Grittman responded that there are communities that allow more or higher signage. As you go in toward the metro, there are COlnmunities that allow less signage. Hilgart stated that he agrced with Grittman that thc sign will not bc visible going west. Ilc also notcd that travelers going cast will go to the other l-loliday. There was a brief discussion on the appearancc of a sign for Guadalajara restaurant. The Commission asked staff to look into thc size and height of the sign. . Dragsten asked what would happen if this propcrty were not a PUD. Grittman statcd they could have two or three wall signs, and one pylon sign. Grittman clarified that each sign face the applicant is requesting is larger than what is allowcd. Dragsten confirmcd that the landscaping proposed was cnhanced. Grittman agreed. Spaliz agreed that blue highway signs are much more efTective along the highway; thc larger signs arc ineffective. Suchy indicated that she is tcnding to lean towards staffs recommendation. She statcd it is nicc to be consistent, but a sign this size doesn't makc sense. Frie asked ifthe ordinancc rcfers to signs bascd on height near frceway. Grittman stated that the ordinance is based on both thc speed and type of the road. Posusta stated that staff shouldn't dictate what type of sign thc propeliy owners should have. He statcd that staff is misleading on some of their information. He stated that in terms of total sign area, if this property was brokcn up into two entities, the numbers change. Posusta rcfcrred to the need to get rid of the liquor store sign because it's ugly. The City has stated that they need that sign for business. Posusta stated that logic should apply in this circumstance, too. Wcndy's and Holiday havc been in busincss long enough to know what they need. Posusta stated his opinion that the double sign is more attractive than two separatc signs. Posusta addcd that this project is a total demolition and redevelopmcnt. He commentcd that elsewhere the City tries to bend thc rules to help that process. In this case, they aren't asking the City for anything except trying to make the site morc viable. . V ictal' Sacco, representing Holiday Companies, addressed the Commission. Sacco statcd that they are trying to put in a showpiece and tlagship property. Sacco stated that they have made changes at staffs request in terms of architectural and landscaping trcatments. He notcd that thcre had been a suggestion from City staffto place a welcome sign at the Highway 25 and Oakwood corner and they offercd to do that. Sacco stated that thcy had tried to work with staff and that they werc Icd to believe therc was common ground. Sacco notcd that a PUD is 6 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . a negotiation for which they had sought to build a coalition of suppoli. Sacco stated that the pylon requested is not really a high risc sign and statcd that it is not visible I mile down the road. However, before you approach the ramp, drivers can see the sign. Sacco stated that while the bluc highway signs are good, they tell you what, but not where. Sacco stated that when people see the sign that says Holiday, they will know the location. Sacco referred to the existing pylons for McDonald's and SA and stated that he believes the sign is reasonable. Eric Kellogg provided comments to the Commission, representing Wendy's. Kellogg referenced the proposed landscaping improvements. He noted that as separate properties, each party is allowed one 32' pylon. Instead, thcy are proposing one 52' sign, which is 8' below what would be allowed with separate parcels. Suchy said that when you come down the interstate, you want to be able to see the sign, which you might not be able to in this case. She asked ifan eye level sign might make morc of an impact and be more attractive. Sacco stated as marketers, that isn't what we expect. We believe drivers will look up to see where to go. Suchy asked it~ in Sacco's opinion, it is more valuable to have the pylon. Sacco confirmed. Hilgali asked about the height of SA sign. Patch stated it was allowed by variance at 57'. . Frie asked the question that if Commission could handle the 57', should the issue then be the area size. O'Neill agreed that is also concern. He stated that ultimately, it is Commission's decision on whether the amenities are enough of a tradc-off for the prol iferation of pylon signs. O'Neill noted that the Commission had just gone through a process that establishes thc signage parameters. O'Neill thanked the developer for coming in and noted that staff is not picking on the developer. He stated that the City has an ordinance and staff have a responsibility to identify and explain it. Frie asked if the Commission allows the 57' and the area proposed, is there enough flexibility to not have four walls signs, etc. Grittman confirmed that the Commission can negotiate what it would like. Frie stated that the Commission is here to work with the developer. Posu'sta noted that people can just go quarter mile and see two separate smaller signs and one obscures the other in either direction. Hc stated that one pole with two signs would have been a better application. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRlE TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AI, OF TIlE PUD AS SUBMITTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND BRICK POSTS ON THE FUEL CANOPY JUSTIFY TIIE DEPARTURE FROM TIlE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS, HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN, SIZE OF PYLON SIGN, AND OVERALL SIGN AREA MOTION SECONDED 13Y COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Suchy stated that if this sign helps to level the playing field, she believes it to be a fair trade. Dragsten stated that his concern that an approval scts a precedent. lIe inquired what will happen on the cast end of town. He noted that that now instead of two shorter signs obscuring each other, there will be 57' signs obscuring each other. . O'Neill reminded the Commission that they had approved only one pylon for the entire Ryan site; all other signs on that project are monument signs. If Commissions hold its ground, developers can only get a change ifthey ask for an amendment. However, if Commission is 7 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 looking to be consistent in all area, now across the freeway from Ryan, you may also have a problem. O'Neill clarified that Ryan got the sign size because there was less signage elsewhere on the site. Dragsten noted that other tall signs in the City were grand fathered in. Hilgart stated that he is undecided. The current pole is 57', but they will need a new one. On the other side of the freeway, he indicated there really won't be a preeedent set. Frie stated that the Ryan pylon is 57'. Spartz asked whether both parcels are located in the freeway bonus areas. Grittman confirmed that they arc and that therefore they can go up to 32'. O'Neill noted that if we keep saying that we want to level the field, we will keep approving 57' signs. The reason tor this code is to provide a reasonable benchmark. O'Neill pointed out the future, stating that if the Commission feels that high signs are okay, then that is your decision. Frie stated that this is different, as it is already there. O'Neill responded that there is also a 32' sign already existing tor Subway and the oil center. Patch noted that there is also another 57' pylon that will be going on the site. It was granted with a previous PU D for the southern end of the site. The approval specified a certain area. However, when it was applied for, it was at double the area approved. Posusta stated that when referring to what is going on the east side of town, the City allowed Ryan to put up 57' where there are none. This is already a high sign area. Dan Mielke addressed the Commission as a property owner on the site. Mielke stated that the sign that Patch refers to is the sign that is to be constructed. DQ has been workable to positioning. That sign was also approved to carry two tenants. Mielke stated that he believed the proposed area was allowable under the approval for the five combine parcels. O'Neill stated that before commenting on that, statfwill need to check the record on that. Patch stated that he has checked the record, the area that was allowed at approximately 260'. Schumann commented that although there may be high signs in other communities, the Commission should consider whether that is what they want for Monticello. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 AS PROPOSED, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a for a Conditional Use Permit tor a detached accessory structure in an R-] Zoning District. Appl icant: Jason Vander! Jcyden Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that the request is an amendment to the original CUP approval. VanderHeyden is seeking to extend the area of pavement associated with his accessory structure. Grittman stated that the concern is in regard to the amount of impervious surtace on the lot. Staff believes the approved conditions were in place for a specific reason. In this case, the Comrnission had indicated that they did not want traffic going in and out of the structure regularly, and also wanted to limit the possibility of storage on the impervious area. If Commission would like to approve the amendment to CUP, staff have outlined rnitigating conditions. Grittman stated that staff recommend against the amendment tor the reasons noted. Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing. 8 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Jason VanderHeyden, 4537 Cobblestone Court, spoke to the Commission. VandedIcyden stated that the green space in his yard area is still more than most backyards. The area that is left to fi II in with concrete is very minimal, versus the green space left. VanderHeyden noted that the concrete area is a good place for children to play. Frie asked if VanderHeyden is receptive to providing the recommended landscaping, should the Commission approve the request. Frie stated that he wanted it on the record to complimcnt the applicant on the structure and landscaping. hie noted that he was a promoter ofthe detached accessory structure ordinance amendment. VanderHeyden stated that his neighbors were not concerncd about his use. Frie asked if he would comply with the landscaping and no outdoor storage conditions. VanderHeyden agreed, although he stated that his work truck may be parked there. Frie asked ifthe two aecessory structures are filled. VanderHeyden clarified that the smaller one would be lcaving. Grittman stated that detached acecssory struetures are allowed in order to create a location for additional residcntial storage for the kind of things they don't use evcryday. The large impervious areas essentially crcate traffic in rear yards, or they beeome places where things get stored. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Suchy statcd that she doesn't look at this as a large driveway, instead viewing it as more of a sport court. Suchy stated that she thinks he's done a wonderful job. She noted that it he agreed to landscaping, that would be ideal. . Spartz asked for the definition for detached accessory structure. Grittman detined it as stated in the ordinance. Spartz asked ifthe structure met setbacks. Grittman stated that it appears that all setbacks have been rnet. . Frie eommented that there would only be a small area for grass if the request is denied. VanderHeyden stated that it is about 5' on one side and 15' on other side. Dragsten commented that when he had voted to recommend approval ofthe requcst, it was with the understanding there would be an apron. He stated he didn't think it was going to be a 30' apron. He noted that in the current situation, of course this request makes sense. Dragstcn stated that while it does look nice, the original approval was for just an apron. VanderHcyden stated that if he recall cd correctly, he had asked for an apron large enough to park a 51h wheel. Hilgart stated that there is a precedent that would be set with an approval, in that thc applicant would be allowed to put in a driveway where the Commission had said he couldn't. The whole point was not to have impervious aceess to these structures. Posusta stated that each situation is a little different. Posusta's concern is that the applicant will pave on the north side of the garage. VanderHeyden stated that it will only be landscape rock. VanderHeyden stated at most, it would be a snowmobile trailer storage area, but he intends to keep that inside. VanderHeyden stated that he plans on keeping everything in the shed. Frie indicated that original conditions prohibit outdoor storage. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE CONTEMPLATED BY TlIE ORIGINAL CUP APPROV AL IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S DECISION TO APPROVAL THE GARAGE AND THE FINDING THAT THE 9 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . COMMISSION SEEKS TO A VOID SETTING A PRECEDENT ON THE PAVED ACCESS. MUrtON SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS FRIE AND SUCHY IN DISSENT. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision and rezoning from P-S to B-4 for Church of St. Henry 1 st Addition. Applicant: C itv of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the new al ignment of ih Street. Grittman referred to the zoning and comp plan as consistent with this request. Grittman referred stated that the plat creates a developable parcel for St. Henry's and accommodates the new ROW and storm watcr ponding. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked why the B-4 zoning designation was requested. Grittman stated that B-4 is the zoning on adjacent parcels and is most consistent with that land use. Dragsten commented that he doesn't know if B-4 is compatible with the Church uses to the west. Frie confirmed with staff that all lots would conform to zoning rcgulations and clarified that the plat and zoning are compatible with goals for the area in the long term. . Posusta noted that th is action is a piece of the interchange project. Frie inquircd whether staff knew what St. Henry's intended for the parcel. Grittman stated that staff have only looked at parcel to make certain it is developablc. Posusta stated that to the east, there is also a Inove for more commercial. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY 1ST ADDITION, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE BEST LONG-TERM USE OF THE SITE IS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES, AND TlIA T THE B-4 DESIGNATION WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WI'll I THE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ALSO ZONED B- 4. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TIlE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE CHURCH OF ST. IIENRY I ST ADDITION, CONTINGENT ON THE REQUIREMENT TIIAT ACCESS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 2 . IS SHARED WITlI THE ADJOINING PARCEL TO THE EAST AND THA'f CROSS EASEMENTS GOVERNING JOINT USES ARE PROVIDED BY TIlE OWNERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RECORDING OF THE PLA'r. TillS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT CREATES A LOT BEST SUITED FOR THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY, AND 10 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . THAT ALL LOTS TN TIlE PLAT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to rezone from PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) to B-3 (Highwav Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company, LLC Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the location ofthe request. Grittman explained that the PZM district, which is the current zoning for the property, provides for and limits commercial service activities, Grittman referred to the chart in the staff report, which compares and contrasts the allowable uses and regulations in both districts. Grittman stated that because the site is adjacent to single family uscs, staff would suggest instead amending the ordinance to determine each proposed use's compatibility on its own merits. Grittll1an stated that staffs recommcndation is to deny the request. . John Ryan, property owner, stated to the Commission that they would specifically seek to allow fast food and auto accessories. They do not nccessarily need rezoning, Ryan noted there is no allowance in the PZM for auto service. Grittman stated that there is a clause for motor service within the code, that could be added by amendment to the PZM district as permitted by CUP. Ryan also noted that hotel/motel is not allowed in a PZM. Ryan stated that most of the adjoining properties are commercial and most residential uses do not directly abut their propcrty. Ryan stated that he docs not think we need to rezone, if may they have the opportunity to seek the CUP undcr an amendment. Ryan referred to their assessment for interchange. Frie asked if Ryan got the table outlined in the staff rcport. Ryan stated that hc did. Frie reviewed CUP uses within the 13-3. Grittman stated that none ofthc uses Frie stated are allowed in the PZM. Frie stated that may be why the applicant is sccking the B-3. Grittman stated that the amendmcnt may he acceptable as wcll. Frie asked if that option was made available to the applicant. Patch stated that he didn't believe so. Chainnan Frie opened the public hcaring, . Dan GassIer addressed thc Commission, representing A Glorius Church. Gasslcr stated that he noticed that thc church wasn't considcrcd in potential rezoning impacts, Gassier stated that thc church owns the parcel with the largest amount of lineal footagc directly abutting this property. Gassier clarified that hc doesn't want anyone to think ofthe church as a buffering area bctwccn commercial and residential uses, Gassier stated that hc drove through town looking at B-3 districts, which includes uses such as Gcncral Rental and McDonald's. Gassier statcd that hc doesn't think that is rcally the type of use we want to see next to the church, Gassier also noted the clause allowing adult uscs within the B-3 district. Gassier statcd that it was interesting to him that adult uses are permittcd without even the nccd for conditional use permit. Gassier stated that thcy want to protect the quality of their property. Additionally, he stated that the types of uses allowed in a B-3 are not compatible next to R-I areas. He indicated that whcn the church searched for property, they were discouraged from siting in a location that was incompatible with their use. Gasslcr stated that the church is against this rezoning. 11 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Fric asked what Gassier's attitude is towards the PZM district. Gassier stated that with limited knowledge, he is satisfied with what is there now. Albert Blasovich, also a property owner, addressed the Commission, asking Gassier to provide them with information on what types of uses might be acceptable, as it would help them in who they would invite in and determine what is acceptable. Frie stated that is really a separate issue from the rezoning. Blasovich stated that he would like to go on record that they would at least like to see the portion adjacent to Hart Boulevard rezoned. Posusta agreed that might be more acceptable. Gassier stated that seems more favorable, athough it seenlS as though the applicants are still moving toward other uses. David Gassier, resident ofthe Mill Run development, stated that he shares his father's concerns. He added that he represent the residents of Mi II Run area. He noted that he did not receive a mailing because he is outside the 350' area. Gassier stated that he was also made aware of the adult uses allowed in the B-3, and as a nearby resident that concerns him. He mentioned his children and stated that it is a concern, even if only allowed on paper. Gassier stated the residents are also concerned about noise. He stated that the compromise in zoning only a portion ofthe property may be a favorable option. GassIer indicated that in his opinion, all are residents should have been notified, noting the nearby child care facility. Grittman stated that while the zoning district docs allow adult uses as permitted uses, there is a spacing requirement between the adult use and residential areas, parks and churches. None of this area would be eligible for adult use because of its proximity to those areas. . Frie asked about whether adult uses are permitted uses in a 13-3. Grittman stated as long as they meet code requirements, they are permitted uses. Posusta clarified that the City is only required to notify property owners within 350 feet and also posts notices on the website, as well as newspaper. A citizen asked whether the Commission could address the issue of AST Sports being allowed to park a mobile home on their propeliy. Frie asked him to address his concern at the Council meeting. Grittman also recommended a call to staff during the day. Ifthcre is a violation, they can follow up on it. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he agrees with keeping the lot next to church PZM and possibly rezoning the others. Dragsten, Spartz and Suchy agreed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT 'rHE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR TIlE AREA (DUE TO PROXIMITY OF EXTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL USES) IS THE PZM DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. . 12 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . 11. Public Hearing- Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a detached acccssorv structure in an R-4 residential district. Applicant: Kiellberg's, Inc. Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the appl icant is seeking a conditional use permit to add an accessory storage unit. Grittman stated that in reviewing the plans, staff was unsure whether the structure was to be enclosed and how it would be screened, which can be clarified with the applicant. Grittman noted the other conditions in the staff report, and stated that with verifications as noted, staff are recommending approval. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Kirk Kjellberg, representing Kjellberg's Park at 1000 Kjellberg's West, explained that there is an existing shop building, which has been there for 30 years. Obscuring that building from Highway 25 is a large, mature lilac hedge obscuring from Highway 25. Kjellberg stated that the whole area is only used for parks maintenance and the proposed structure is meant to only house vehicles. Kjellberg stated that as far as dust and drainage, the structure will have a concrete floor. Frie clarified that the structure wouldn't be rented. Kjellberg stated that it would only be used for company use. Frie asked about storm shelter use. Kjellberg stated that there is a misconception regarding that issue. Kjellberg's already has a large storage area with a number of rooms. The storm shelter room is empty and is the designated shelter area. The other rooms may be occupied. Patch stated that he had conducted an inspection and it is as Kjellberg stated it. . Frie inquired if Kjellberg had held dry runs for shelter use. Kjellberg stated that they have had real instances where the shelter has been used, noting that every resident has a map. He stated that it is well understood where the shelter is and how it works. Kjellberg stated that they do want to put an overhang on the proposed building. The drawings don't reflect that. Kjellberg stated that they are planning on making it an open bay; in the future they may add doors. Frie asked staff ifthere is any concern on this item. Patch indicated therc was not. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Posusta asked when sOll1ething is being added to an existing structure, does it need to be compliant. Patch asked whether Posusta was referring to the zoning or building code. Posusta asked in terms of handicap accessibility. Patch stated that detenninatiol1 is based on what percentage the expansion is of the original building. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TIlE BU]LDING SHOULD BE ABLE TO MEET EACH OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WILL MINIMIZE OUTDOOR STORAGE IN TIlE MOBILE HOME PARK. THIS APPROVAL SHOULD INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT VERIFJES SCREENING OF THE STORAGE AREA FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THAT THE STORM SHELTER BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED FOR STORAGE. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 13 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . 12. Public Ilearing - Consideration of request to rezone an industrial propertv from T-IA (Light Industrial) to 1-2 (Heavv Industrial). Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the approximate location ofthe rezoning area within the City's Otter Creek business/industrial park. The application is to rezone a portion ofthe plat from I-I A to 1-2. Grittman stated there is a contract for deed on this portion of the property and when the City takes ownership, they will apply a series of covenants. Grittman reported that the 1-2 district zon ing causes some potential confl icts between the covenants and 1-2 code requirements. Grittman stated that staff want to make clear that thc covenants will also be applicable to an 1-2 district, just as they would in the 1-1 A part of the industrial park. Grittman stated that the purpose of the rezone is to consider a potential relocation site for the A VR plant, which is being moved as part of the interchange process. In the event A VR does decide to relocate, this area is an option. Grittman stated that one of the things that may come into play with this rezoning is whether other 1-2 uses would be allowed. Grittman reviewed the five concerns as listed in the staff report. The 1-2 designation could generate some negative impact on property valuations. This is important when Commission considers impacts on adjoining land llses. Finally, the report outlines that there must bc a demonstrated need for the use proposed. Ifthe City is going to acquire the A VR property, there is a basis for need. Grittman reiterated that it is staff's view that Commission should only recommend approval with active enforcement of covenants and existing ordinances. . I lilgm1 asked if there is any other 1-2 land in the City that ^ VR could move to. Grittman stated that there are limited amounts ofI-2 land and it is his understanding that they are not large enough to accommodate site. They are looking for about 10 acres. Hilgart asked if they store trucks outsidc. Grittman stated that outdoor storage is not allowed by the covenants for the park. ^ VR would have to accommodate that. Chairman Frie opencd the public hearing. John lJban, of planning firm Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, spoke to the Commission represcnting the YMCA, as an adjacent property owner. Uban stated that thc public hearing notice seemed unclcar in terms of rezoning boundaries. He noted that it is unusual to not see exact zoning boundaries. He noted that if a developer came before the Commission, the Commissioners would want to see details regarding the application prior to rezoning. And yet, the Commission is bcing asked to consider rezoning without an exact site location and configuration. Uban stated that othcr considerations include the impacts on surrounding uses. He stated that it is unusual to put 1-2 uses next to residential uses. He stated that there is a billion dollars worth of investment in land development in this area. Thc City has also just purchased property for a high-end business industrial devclopment. Uban discussed the types of uses allowed in and 1-2, including render plants and others. He stated that there is a definite conflict with surrounding properties. Uban stated that thc YMCA does not support this rczoning. Uban presented lettcrs from DSU and the YMCA's attorney in this regard. . Uban referrcd to other uses that could go in other areas of the park and indicated that thc dust, vibration and other negative influences from 1-2 uscs would negatively impact the City's own 1-1 A area. lJban stated that the request is almost like a spot-zoning, in that although it is still industrial, the uses don't seem to fit with the City's stated goals. Uban illustrated a site in Oakwood Industrial Park, which seems to have ample land. lie noted that location wouldn't be adjacent to residential area and would be close to the existing plant. lJban stated that anothcr option might be to look at sitcs in the township or in the County land. Uban stated again, that he goes on record recommending dcnial of the request. 14 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Posusta responded that the City has been looking for a new site for two years. Posusta stated that A VR can't go outsidc the City, as the County has rules for these types of uses related to mining. Posusta stated that once the mining use goes away, the ecment plant needs to go away. Posusta stated that as far as other locations within the city, A VR has certain criteria they need to operate. Posusta reiterated that the City has tried to find someplace other than this. Ifthe City doesn't find them a place to go, there is a possibility of paying a loss of going concern claim. Posusta stated that if this is the location, they will have to do extensive landscaping and bertning and all equipment will be indoors. Posusta stated that there would also be a screening wall and trees. Posusta also noted that the site is a basin, so we don't believe it would have a lot of impact on the residential area. The only significant issue left is the truck traffic. Uban asked about the noted vacant land. Posusta stated that the site Uban referred to was not large enough to support A YR. Posusta also stated that the City doesn't know for sure that this location is where the Ready Mix will go. Uban stated that almost more of a concern than the cement plant is the rezone. Posusta stated that if the cement plant gocs away, so does thc zoning. Uban stated that he had not heard of that happening. Uban stated that perhaps a CUP with spceific requirements would be more acceptable. In essence, the City would keep it the same zone, but treat this cement plan as a conditional or interim use. The change of zone represents all the other uses that can be there. Posusta stated that ifthat's plausible, then maybe we can look at it. Posusta stated again that this rezone is not taken lightly; this is something the Council has wrestled with. Frie stated that the Comm ission can keep Uban' s suggestion on the table as another option. . Jerry Crocker, 53 Mallard Lane, addressed the COllHnission. Crocker stated that he has a house on 39, which would be getting a lot of truck traffic from this proposed use. He stated that he would not look forward to that. Crocker stated that the plant itself wouldn't bother him, but thc truck traffic would. Frie asked Posusta if there is any intent to redirect traffic. Posusta stated that trucks would likely be moving down Chelsea or School. Posusta statcd that trucks would go east on Chelsea. Crocker stated that they won't be coming that way with the gravel. Posusta stated that they'll just take the easiest way. Crocker stated that he knew whcre the trucks would get the gravel from and which way they would go. Ollie Koropehak addressed the Commission, speaking as in her capacity as Economic Development Director, noting that shc is not representing the HRA or EDA. Koropchak noted for the record that the site Uban referred to is 37 to 40 acres. She also noted that Planning Commission is being asked to rezone an area that is not defined. Koropchak stated that Outlot B consists of 44 acres. Koropehak stated that the City has been told that the eventual site may range from 10-15 acres. . Koropehak read the purpose statement for the 1-2 zone, which provides for the establishment of heavy industrial or manufacturing uses, which by their nature rcquire isolation from residential or commcrcial uses. Koropchak referred to the City's long range land use plan and stated that whcn looking at rezoning, the Commission is looking to make decisions for future use. She explained that the proposed site might bc in the center of Monticello in the future. Koropchak stated that the HRA will be meeting tomorrow night and has not had a chance to review this request. From a Planning Commission perspective, the impact of heavy industrial next to residential should bc considered. She asked whether the City should base planning decisions on reactions or actions of economic benefit as opposed to good long range planning. Lastly, Koropchak stated that she wanted to bring to the Comlnission's attention the economic impact of their decision. The City has established criteria for land purchase in the 15 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . City indllstrial park. In presenting the contrast, Koropchak stated that the preferred measures are intended to attract a certain number of jobs, and a certain size building of a certain value. Koropchak explained that a twelve acre property meeting the criteria requires a company to employ 96 people at a wage of $16.00 per hour, without benefits. Multiplied out annually, that bllsiness wOllld generate over $3 million in wages per year. In contrast, based on information supplied by the proposed user, they would generate 20 jobs with an average wage of $30.00 per hour. Annually, Koropchak stated that equals approximately $1 million in wages. That calculation is a loss of close to $2 million in wages alonc. As such, Koropchak pointed out that thcre is a definite value impact to a potential rezoning. Koropchak stated that under the criteria set up for the park, a company would have to build a 130,000 square foot building to purchase 12 acres. Koropchak indicated that would mean an approximate assessed value of over $6.5 million, yielding $158,000 in local taxes. Again pointing out the contrast, Koropchak stated that the proposed user would only generate $32,970 in local taxes based on a building valuation of$1 million. Koropchak reported that would be a loss in market value of$5 million and over $125,000 in local taxes annually. Koropchak stated that she recognizes and is sllpportive of other projects in the community. She is only addressing this issue from an economic development perspective. Koropchak cxplained that the City did approve a tax incrcment district at the east end oftown to offset potential interchange costs. TIF will assist to minimize higher than expected cost ofpublic inlprovements. Frie asked who Koropchak represents. Koropchak re-stated she represents hersclf as Economic Development Director. She stated that she is not supportive of either a rezoning or CUP within an I-I A. Frie asked if she could go on record that the site noted in Oakwood Industrial Park is another siting option. Koropchak stated that as Grittman noted, that property would also require rezoning. It is currently 1-1 A. . Dan Olson, owner of the Monticello State Farm Insurance branch, addressed the Commission as Chair of the Industrial Development Committee. Olson stated that the IDC has put great efforts into finding industrial land for the City park. Olson reported that the vision of the IDC for the City's industrial park has always been that it would have a campus teel. He stated that the rezoning proposal is disturbing in terms of that vision. Olson indicated that he thinks the group is very understanding of the situation, but we're hoping there can be a better solution. Olson stated that as a group, the IDC has not come up with a solution. He commented that they have visited alternate sites, and many don't seem workable. Olson noted that the (DC is currently trying to market the busincss center and feels this will be tough to do until a tone for the park is established. Olson stated that he teels this use will have a negative impact. He noted that the IDC has also seen the numbers that Koropchak presented. Olson asked if Commission would like a copy. Frie stated that O'Neill will make certain thcy get a copy. I.'rie asked ifthe !DC had reconlmendcd the 1-1 A zoning. Olson confirmed they had supported the 1-1 A zoning. Hilgart asked it~ as of right now, there are any tenants secured for the new park. Koropchak stated that they arc working with one potential buyer, aside from Dahlhimer's. Hilgart stated that if someone signed up, this may make them re-think the area. Olson agrced that is a concern. Frie asked jfthe IDC had worked with Dahlheimer's. Olson stated they had not. . Paul Bilotta spoke to the COl11l11ission representing Otter Creek, LLC. Bilotta stated that Otter Creek, LLC is still the underlying land owner. IIc explained that others have discussed the appropriate land uses and he agrees with those comments. He noted that Otter Crcek, LLC didn't hear about the specifics of the rezoning until this evening. Bilotta stated that there is a contract for deed on the land with the City, and he doesn't know how this request impacts that. He stated that they are concerned about the spot-zoning and the covenant issue. 16 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Bilotta indicated that there is some concern that even though the rezone would have covenants, it isn't something that is readily available to a potential buyer. He stated that he understands that a negotiation is going on, but also feels like rules are being bent. Bilotta stated that sometimes you end up creating new legal issues and Otter Creek, LLC feels uncomfortable with this proposal. Mary Barger, resident at 105 Mississippi Drive, business owner in Oakwood Industrial Park and member of IDC, spoke to the Commission. She asked the Commission to deny the request for two reasons. Barger noted that although Posusta stated that the City is between a rock and a hard plaee, there was an option presented tonight that hadn't been looked at. Barger stated that in fact, this morning the lDC had heard that A VR might go to Osowski's, if they got an intcrehange. Bargcr stated that thc numbers that Koropchak presented are striking. Barger stated that the impact on the surrounding area is a eoncern. Barger stated that with the Jefferson at Monticello project, the YMCA and other existing residential, having an 1-2 zoning district in the area is uneonscionable. Barger asked after Ready-Mix goes in, then what. Barger commented that when we change the zoning, then will we be known as a City with "flexible zoning". Barger statcd that property values in the area will deerease. She noted that the reason we don't have single-family in existing 1-2 areas, is because this is not a good mix. She explained that when the IDC looked at doing I-I A zoning, it was to bring in quality businesses with aesthetically pleasing buildings, sueh as UMC and Twin City Die Casting. Barger stated lastly that she would not want the City to repeat the mistakes of the past, referring to the residential development of Klein Farms against the 1-2 industrial park. As a business owner in the area, she stated that they do get complaints from the rcsidents. For those reasons, Barger asked that Commission consider denial. . Frie stated that when the City put in Oakwood, they did not imagine the residential uses adjacent. However, the developer did a good job by using condos and town homes as a buffer. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing. Hilgart asked if A VR would be the park's first tenant. O'Neill stated that Dahlheimer's would be. Patch confirmed that Dahlheimer's is under construction. IIilgart stated that he is in favor of seeing ^ VR move somewhere else. Dragsten inquired that if ^ VR comes in, would they come in under CUP or PUD. Grittman stated that in an 1-2, they would be permitted. As property owner, the City can impose other restrictions. Dragsten stated that hc is also concerned about not knowing the size of site, nor the building type and landscape plans. Grittmall stated that he thought the size of the parcel A VR sought was closcr to II acres. Spartz notcd that the City has seen the conflicts with 1-2 zoning ncxt to residential arcas. He stated that he agrces that should not be allowed to happen here. Suchy staled she cannot supp0l11-2 in this location. She stated that while she is all for letting them do their business, she cannot support thc use in the City's prime new business deve lopment. . MOTION [3y COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZON lNG, BASED ON ^ FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL USES IN THE 1-2 DISTRICT, AND TIlE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE USE OF 'J'HE PROPERTY FOR A CONCRETE READY-MIX PLANT (INCLUDING DUST, TRUCK TRAFFIC, NOISE, 17 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . MATERIAL STORAGE, AND DUMPING OF EXCESS CONCRETE, WILL CAUSE A DEPRECIATION IN THE V ALUE OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 13. Consideration to review an update on parking requirements for Landmark Square II. Grittman reported that he and the site designer had looked at the site and determined that is acceptable for the applicant to create proof of parking as the space is leased. The variance is not needed. Frie stated that Opal Stokes sold her propel1y to the Landmark developers: perhaps that will be parking. 14. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation ofpvlon signage. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman explained that this amendment had come out of the Denny Hecker request for addition pylon signage on his lots. The City Council had requested that the Commission look at changes to the ordinance to allow multiple pylon signs. The proposed amendment would allow 1 sign per 300 feet of highway frontage. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Chairman Frie stated that when the present sign ordinance was put into effect, he and Conlmissioner Dragsten served on the amendment committee. Frie questioned whether the Commission should be reacting based on one request. lIe stated that if this is the attitude of the Council, they should draft an amendment based on freeway frontage. frie noted that a similar request had been made in 2001; the Council denied that request. Frie indicated that he doesn't know what else the Planning Commission can offer on this item. Suchy stated that she doesn't understand why we're wasting stafftime and money on this issue. If an applicant wants to come before the Commission and make a specific request, let them. O'Neill stated that the point of an ordinance is to draw the line in the sand and try not to allow variances, as a precedent ends up being set over time. If the Council wants to allow it, then this gives them the standards to do so. Frie asked for clarification on O'Neill's standpoint on this item. O'Neill indicated that the current ordinance works well, but it is the Commission's decision if they feel a change is justified. Spartz asked about the practical application of the ordinance. Grittman stated if you only have 300 feet of frontage, even though you have a ten acre parcel, you are still allowed only I sign on that parcel. Dragsten asked how many more signs Denny I Iecker would get under this amendment. Grittman stated they are already maxed out, even with this amendment. . Hilgart stated that in this opinion, this alnendment docs not make sense. 18 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 15. Consideration of scheduling additional Planning Commission meetings relating to ordinance matters and long-range planning. O'Neill reviewed the long-range planning initiatives that the Planning Commission had notable to address, due to the number of planning case applications. O'Neill noted the need for the Commission to address these items and recommended adding a second regularly scheduled meeting in order to do so. O'Neill stated that the meeting would also be a chance for feedback and open forums. O'Neill noted that these meetings would be for pure planning purposes, not for planning applications or public hearing purposes. Frie stated that he supports the idea of not holding any public hearings. O'Neill stated that it has to be that way due to the reviewed and public notice cycle. Frie asked for consensus among the Commissioners. I lilgart stated that he is somewhat reluctant due to the time commitment. Dragsten also noted the time commitment involved. Spartz, Suchy, and Frie agreed the second meeting should be recommended. . Frie asked when the schedule would commence. O'Neill stated that it would be up to the Commission. Frie inquired whether the motion should include a recommendation to hold no public hearings. O'Neill recommended against that amendment, in case the Commission needed to hold a hearing on an item related to their discussions. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO REQUES'f THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECOND MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE HELD THE 3RD TUESDAY OF TIlE MONTH AT 5:00 -7:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 16. Adiourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. . '-1 LlV~ffiU<-J Secret, t: . 19