Planning Commission Minutes 11-03-2003
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday - November 3,2003
6:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Lloyd Hilgart, Dave Reitveld, Rod Dragsten and Richard
Carlson.
Absent:
City Council Liaison, Bran Stumpf
StalT Present:
.letJO'Neill, Steve Grittman
1. Call to Order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m and declared a quorum present noting the
absence of Council Liaison Stumpf.
2.
Approval of minutes of the re(!ular Planning Commission meeting held October 7. 2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE OCTOBER 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Dick Frie requested that the Planning Commission discuss barricade of parking lot drive in the
private parking area adjacent to the Smith and Hayes law firm onice.
Jeff O'Neill reported that the barricade restricting vehicle movement between properties was
recently installed. He noted that he has not talked to the property owner regarding the
installation but surmised that it was done to restrict traffic from entering the Smith and Hayes
parking area from the adjacent joint parking site tot he west. The parking lot to the west is a
shared parking lot installed by Barry Fluth in conjunction with the Amoco sitc redevelopment.
Although it is unfortunate that the access is cut-off due to the installation of the barricade, the
property owner is operating within his rights to eliminate this access.
4. Citizen Comments.
None.
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
5.
Public Hearine - Consideration of a reauest for a conditional use nermit for exnansion of
drive throul!h ban kine facilitv and other site imnrovements. Applicant: Wells Fargo
Bank. Minnesota. N.A.
Steve Grittman reported that Wells Fargo Bank is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow for the expansion of its drive through banking facility and the construction of additional
parking on its parcel. The land occupied by the bank was recently expanded as a part of the library
location trade lor the lormer Marquette Rank building.
Wells Fargo is seeking the approval of a site plan that includes a future building addition and
permanent parking lot design, as well as an interim project. The interim project includes the
expansion of the existing drive through area and a temporary driveway along the west side of the
existing building. Eventually, the temporary driveway would be replaced by the building addition,
and the applicant would construct a parking lot along Walnut Street. StalT makes the lollowing
comments on the site plan proposed by the applicant:
I. The location of the parking lot along Walnut Street would violate the City's Comprehensive
Plan direction to require a maximization of commercial building frontage on this street.
2. The interim improvements appear to be consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed
by the City, and would not interfere with either the building addition or the future circulation
plan on the site.
3. The improvements for the parking lot on the former library site would interfere with the long
term objective to construct a commercial building on that corner.
4. The City has designated land for a parking lot on the southwest corner of this block, designed
to retain the existing trees on the site, and to permit the remainder of the block to be developed
with buildings.
5. With regard to the drive through facility, the use and circulation appear to meet the original
concept plan, and should be able to facilitate the future development of the site.
6. The drive through arrangement of the A TM location will require additional review by the City
Engineer to ensure that connections to 4th Street are properly located, and the turning radius
around the drive aisle can be accommodated by passenger vehicles.
The City's parking lot was designed to accommodate both overllow parking from the Towne
Centre project and public parking to be used by the commercial facilities on the Wells Fargo Block,
including the expansion of the Wells Fargo building. By approving the current plan, an excess of
parking would bc present on this block, and the frontage along Walnut for this entire block length.
This would be counter to the direction of the Comprehensi ve Plan that calls for maximizi ng the
building frontage along Walnut, and efforts to screen parking areas from Walnut Street exposure.
2
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
Moreover, as noted above, the parking lot as designed would preclude future building in that
location by placing storm scwcr in the middle of the proposcd parking lot. When the City
transferred this land to the bank, the City did not abandon its planning objectives. Wells Fargo's
original concept plan, reviewed and approvcd by the City, showed a new commercial building at
the corner of Walnut and 4th Strect, in accordance with the Comprehensivc Plan.
Staff believes that the better plan would be to try to convince Wells Fargo to leave the corner
location vacant until a commcrcial building is economically feasible. Parking demand can bc
ahsorhed by the public parking lot on the corner adjacent to the railroad tracks that would provide
adequate parking for Wells Fargo, and overflow lor the future commercial and 'fowne Centrc.
Unf()rtunately, it does not appear that Wells Fargo can be convinced that following the
Comprehensive Plan can be made to work.
Susie Wojehouski reported that the Design Advisory Committee concurs with the staff
recommendation and believes that placement of a parking lot on Walnut as proposed runs counter
to the comprehensive plan.
.
Harold Riche representing Wells Fargo indicated that it was his understanding that the City Council
waived aspects of the Comprehensive Plan when they exchanged the former Marquette Hank
property for the I ibrary site. In a letter hom the City, Riche noted that the terms of sale indicated
that there would be to requirement to place a building on Walnut Street.
JefTO'Neill indicated that the letter released the Wells Fargo from placing a huilding at the corner
as a specific term of sale, but he was not aware if it was the City Council's intention to release the
Wells Fargo from compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which does not allow parking along
Walnut.
Riche noted that Wells Fargo would not have made the trade if the deal did not include the use of
the property as currently proposed. It was his understanding that the terms of the letter freed Wells
Fargo to allow parking along Walnut. He also noted that the site could he modified by allowing
head-in parking along Walnut as noted and would also include ample landscaping along parking
lot boundary,
Dick Frie noted that it appeared to him that the terms of the letter has provided clear direction and
that it is difficult to make a recommendation contrary to the expectations outlined in the letter.
.
DICK FRlE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION AS PROPOSED,
INCLUDING THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRIVEWAY, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PLAN FACILITATES THE EXPANSION OF THE BANK SITE AND
THAT EXPANSION WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE WITHIN THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
NOT'ED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TilE MOTION INCLUDES CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICArrONS TO THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
3
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MODIFICATION IS IN'fENDED TO IDENTIFY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES LIMITING
PREFERRED MAIN STREET DESIGN. DAVE REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH LLOYD HILGART VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
6. Public "carin!! - Consideration of a reQuest for a conditional use permit for conceot stage
planned unit development and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and
variance for parkin!!. Applicant: Walnut Plaza Partnershio.
Steve Grittlllan reported that the applieants are seeking approval of a commercial project along
Walnut Street, south of 3rd Street. The project would retain the existing James and Gruber
building, and construct a new building along Walnut Street within the existing parking lot. The
existing bui Iding is approximately 4,750 square feet in area, and the new building would add
approximately 12,900 square
fect of new commercial spaec on two levels, a new total of 17,650 squarc feet on the project.
Thc building would have a main level and a lower level with window exposure at the sidewalk
level.
.
The projeet plans show a parking lot 01'38 spaces, including parking that utilizes accesses in the
alley area. Walnut Street is also shown with angled parking consistent with the City's Walnut
Street improvement plans.
The CCD District includes a clause that permits developcrs to rcduce their parking supply to
60lYo ofthc standard requirement under certain conditions. These conditions include an
agreement that the parking lot will be made open and avai lable to any vehicles (during
reasonable business hours). The applicants also have the opportunity, on approval of the City,
to pay into a public parking fund that is designed to accumulate funds for acquisition,
construction, and maintenanee of centralized public parking at locations ehosen by the City in
the downtown area. The theory behind this ordinanee relies on the ability of different
commercial users to sharc parking on a single block, relying on diffcring pcak use periods to
avoid congestion. When that congestion does oeeur, street parking should be available to
aeeommodate any overflow.
In this case, the rcquired parking, according to the standard zoning regulations, would be
approximately 79 parking spaces. At 60% (assuming the parking lot is opcn to others, the
requirement would be 48 spaces. As noted, the site plan shows 38 spaces, a deficit of 10 spaces
from the City's reduced allowancc.
.
Moreovcr, the applicant has located the parking lot adjacent to the neighboring parcel, with no
setback as is typically requircd. This design can be accommodated by the PUO process, and the
neighboring property owner, Ace Hardware, has indieated that he will allow cross easement
parking thus enabling the zero setback along the border between the two parking The concern
4
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
with the proposed layout, however, is that no connection to the adjoining Ace Hardware site is
provided with this plan. Planning staff would recommend at least one connection to the Ace
Hardware lot to justify the concept of open use of the parking area. This will likely reduce the
available parking on the proposed plan by two or three more spaces.
Thc question becomes whether the City wishes to grant a variance or consider a reduction in the
number of required spaces and accept a parking fund contribution. It should be noted that future
expansion on the other two lots (Ace Ilardware and Napa Auto Parts) could be affectcd by any
deficit approved on the Walnut Plaza sitc.
The City has previously discussed the latter concept, given the availability of parking in Walnut
Street. The funds received from the applicants for their parking deficit (for 12 or 13 spaces
based on a final site plan) would be able to be applied to Walnut Street improvements that
would provide as many as 18 on~street spaces in this block. As a result, there should be
adequate parking in the area, provided that the buildings arc designed to accept entrancc from
the Walnut Street side as well as the parking side.
.
Rod Dragsten asked if there will be enough parking space left over for the other stores on the
block to expand if the proposed expansion occurs. Jeff O'Neill noted that each property owner
will havc the capacity for expansion if they provide public parking.
Dick frie noted that the variance to the parking standards is not needed if the parking fee is
provided which would fund parking on Walnut. Arc the applicants aware of this requirement?
Jell O'Neill noted that the applicant is aware of this situation.
Fred Patch reminded the Planning Commission that the building design is conception and will
likely to be modified, however not to the extent that concept PUD approval will need to be
readdressed.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING LOT
DESIGN WITH A ZERO SETBACK, WITH TIlE CONDITION THAT A CONNECTION TO
THE ADJOINING PARCEL IS PROVIDED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUD
F ACILIT A TES JOINT PARKING USE WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL NEED FOR
PARKING FACIUTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED
THE MOHON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING THE
DEFICIENCY IN PARKING STALLS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT TILE
SHORTF ALL WILL BE ACCOMMODATED VIA CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARKING
FUND AS OUTLINED ABOVE. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5
.
.
.
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance from the requirements of the
zoning: ordinance restrictine siells from being placed in public rieht of way. Applicant:
Jeff Sell/Wcst Mctro Pontiac Buick GMC.
Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are sccking a variance from the City's sign
ordinance and right of way ordinancc that require all private signs to bc located upon the
propcrty of thc owner, and according to the required setback rcgulations of the zoning district.
In this case, the proposed signs havc alrcady been erected, and are on thc right of way of
Sandbcrg Road. There are three such signs for which the applicant is requesting this variance.
The site is zoned B-3, Highway Commcrcial, and currently has other signage (both wall-
mounted and frccstanding) that identify the applicant's busincss to traffic along 1-94 and Trunk
Highway 25.
Variancc requests arc to be reviewed as whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes
with putting the property to reasonable usc. In this case, the applicant has highly visible
propcrty and is seeking an advantage in sign display that is denied to other commcrcial
concerns. The applicant has occupied the property for some time, and there does not appear to
be any uniquc property conditions that make thc use of the property unreasonable or
uneconomical.
Moreover, private advertising signs within the right of way could interfere with traHic visibility
and street maintenance operations, creating and unsafe condition. Bccause there is no specific
hardship to support a variance in this case, the granting of such a variance could \cad to
concerns of precedent and how othcr requests might be revicwcd. 'fhe City is obligated to apply
its zoning regulations equitably among the various properties in the zoning district, and could
have trouble denying futurc requests for similar signs.
Jeff Sell noted that the sign along Chelsea is important to providing direction to Customers. He
noted that Chelsea road Boulevard seems cxceptionally wide at this location and it did not
appear that he location of the private sign interferes with thc public use of the boulevard. He
requested that he be allowed to leavc it there until the City can provc that it needs the boulevard.
Rich Carlson felt that the signs were not in locations where they would crcate a problem relating
to public use of the right of way.
Dick Frie asked how long the signs had bccn there. Fred Patch indicated that they had been
there a while.
Jeff Q'Nci II notcd that allowing signs in the right of way would set a significant preccdent and
open the door to similar requcsts in many other commercial areas. He also noted that use of the
public right of way for privatc signs would require execution of a lease agreement between the
City and property owncr
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
NO HARDSHIP EXISTS, AND TIIA T PLACEMENT OF THE SIGNS AS PROPOSED
6
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
COULD RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD TO TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND ALLOWING
SUCII SIGN WOULD SET A SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO
REFUSE SUCH REQUESTS BY OTHERS. DA VE REITVELD SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DICK FRIE AND RIClIARD CARLSON VO'flNG
IN OPPOSITION.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to zoning: ordinanee to allow sandwieh
board sif!ns in the rif!ht ofwav in the CCD (Central Community District).
Steve Grittman reported that stafThas prepared a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would
make an allowance f()r a sandwich board as portable signs within the City.
The attached amendment would make a special allowance for small portable signs (which includes
sandwich boards) within the City subject to the following requirements:
I. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, Central Community Zoning
District.
.
2.
The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5) feet of the
entryway of the business it serves.
3. The placement of the signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. If on
the public sidewalk, such signs shall be placed so that no less than six feet of
sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians.
4. The signs shall display messages oriented toward pedestrians.
5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor included any lighted or moving
component.
6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it serves.
7. The signs shall be constructed of wood or other materials determined acceptable by
the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCO zoning
district, and shall not be composed of fluorescent colors.
The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (4) feet in height and six (6) square
feet in area, and must comply with all other regulations of this ordinance.
.
Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the City of Monticello by the
owner of the sign for any liability or claim made involving the sign or sign location.
7
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
No sign shall be permitted to be attached to any public structure or facility.
O'Neill noted that the Design Advisory Committee supports the development of sandwich
board signs as being consistent with the redevelopment plan.
llick Frie asked why we are not allowing such signs in other districts.
Al Loch noted that the other businesses in other districts have greater building setbacks which
provides space in front for display of Pylons, and temporary signs. They also have a better angle
for viewing wall signs from the right of way. Sandwich board signs are intended for temporary
placement on the boulevard in areas where pedestrians frequent. Such signs are not necessary
in Highway Commcrcial areas.
Dave Rcitvcld suggested that the ordinance be amendment to include one sign per business.
DA VE REITVELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THEAMENDMENT', BASED
ON A FINDING THAT SUCII SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH TIlE INTENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN AREA AND WITH TIlE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIT'ALIZA TION
PLAN. MOTION INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO TIm DRAFT ORDINANCE LIMITING
SIGNS TO ONE SIGN PER BUSINESS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9.
Consideration of a request for a concept sta~e planned unit development approval for
residential and industrial uses. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC.
Jeff 0' Neill reported that this item had been withdrawn at the applicant's request.
10. Consideration of a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan relatine to the
development of Block 52 (Hil!hway 25 and Broadway). Applicant: Steve Johnson.
The appl icant represents a development interest on Block 52, and is the owner of a portion of the
property on this block. The site in qucstion is the northwest corner of Highway 25 and Broadway,
bounded by Walnut Street on the west and River Street on the north. 'l"he Comprehensive Plan calls
fiJr a traditional downtown development pattern throughout the downtown area, including a set of
design standards that encourage and/or require a zero setback for building locations and parking
areas that are placed behind the primary commercial buildings they serve.
The proposed devclopment would consist of the removal of most of the buildings along Broadway
and River Street (retaining the one building at the corner of Broadway and Walnut), and elimination
of the public parking lot along River Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant proposes
8
Planning Minutes - 1113/03
.
a Walgreen's Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all sidcs, and a row of
residential units along River Street.
An amendment to the Comprchensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site plan for the
Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that includes parking along the primary
exposures to Highway 25 and Broadway, in direct opposition to the traditional development pattern
and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be
willing to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a sense of the zero
setback building required by thc planning policies, as well as usc building architecture that would
be more traditional in nature.
.
However, the site plan shortcomings of this proposal are dramatic. Particularly at the prime
intersection ofthc downtown arca, a suburban style development would be contrary to foundation
on which the Plan is built, and on which the City has spent considerable amounts of funds to help
achieve. Although the applicants arguc that their tenant will accept no other design due to
economic requirements of their business, several other development projects havc been completed
or are proposcd throughout the downtown area that ref1ects the objectives of the Plan. Among these
include the Towne Centre project, Landmark Squarc, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under
considcration.
In addition, the City has a significant area zoned for the style of project proposed by the
developers. The B-3 and B-4 zoned areas south ofInterstate 94 pcrmit this type of commercial site
planning, and various projects of this type are under way in those arcas. The introduction of this
type of site development in the core of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's
planning process, nor with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout
the downtown area.
The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request at this time. lfthc
Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential merit, a public hearing should be
called for formal consideration of the request at the December meeting.
Steve Johnson noted that in recent years he has been making cvcry attempt to attract users to the
site. He noted that retailers generally have not been supportive of the zero setback requiremcnts
as dcfined in the redevelopment plan. To make the site attractive to retailers it may be necessary
to allow parking along the edge instead of building. The appearance of available parking is a
desired component of most retail developments. This is why Walgreen desires parking availability
on at least three sides of the building.
.
It was noted by Susie Wojchouski that the Pine Street (Highway 25) edge is very inhospitable to
pedestrian traffic and that it might make sense to allow parking along this edge and design the site
so that the pedestrian traffic is buffered from the road edge. She noted that during sloppy road
conditions it is impossible to walk on the sidewalk without getting splashed.
9
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
It was noted by Johnson that the plan could include screcning of vehicles with a corner monument,
perhaps iron fencing or other landscaping to enhanee the corner. The site designer noted that the
site plan ealls for parking equal or greater to City Code.
O'Neill noted that the placement ofa building in the center of the block as proposed would appear
out of place and at odds with the plan. However, moving it to the Broadway edge with setback for
parking on I [ighway 25 might be an option that would be somewhat consistent with the plan.
Either way, it would be appropriate to eall for a public hearing on an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Rod Dragsten asked if the site was being limited to a single use. Steve Johnson said no it is not
limited to a single use.
RIClIARD CARLSON MOVED TO CALL FORA PUBLIC IIEARING ON AN AMENDMENT
TOTHE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATlNGTO BLOCK 52 AND REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACKS ALONG PINE STREET AND RROADW A Y. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y.
11. Consideration of a reQuest to permit a rc-use of an existinl! non-conforming building.
Applicant: Bcth Austin. (NAC)
Steve Grittman reported that the former Grimsmo funeral chapel at 530 West Broadway is
located within a residential zoning distriet. The eity permitted occupation of the building for
office use following the relocation of the funeral chapel faeility to the former City Hall site,
based on a finding that the office did not cxpand the non-conforming use of the property (a
requirement of the zoning ordinanee for non-conformities). The owner of the property made
various improvements to the property, including the installation of parking lot paving that
violated the five foot setback and eliminating the opportunity to screen parking from
neighboring residential parcels.
The upper level of the building was previously used for residential purposes. This use would be
nominally consistent with the parcel's zoning. An applicant is seeking to re-use the upper level
for yoga classes. The applicant proposes evening and morning classes with occasional wcekend
use as well. The question ft)r the City is whethcr this would constitute an expansion of non-
conforming uses in the building.
Planning staff s position is that the use is not allowed in the residential zoning district, and that
an expansion of this type of activity would be considered prohibited by the ordinance.
Moreover, even though the previous use of the building was commereial in nature, that use was
discontinued several years ago, extinguishing any "grand fathered" use rights it may have
earried.
10
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
Beth Austin was present to provide additional information regarding her use of the site. She
noted that students would be coming on week nights.
Richard Carlson speaking as a neighbor notcd that the use of the site has grown since the
original approval to use the site for office use. It was his understanding the site was limited and
that such expansions wcre not going to be allowed. He bclieves that use of the upper level as
proposed would constitute an expansion of a lawful non-conforming use.
After discussion it was the consensus of the group that the use represents an expansion to a
lawful non conforming use and that the applicant will need to apply for a zoning district
amendment in order to use the property as proposed. The zoning district amendmcnt should
request changing the district designation from R-2 to PZM. Thc application should also includc
a signature from the property owner to the east. Including the property to the east is needed to
create a contiguous PZM district.
12. Adiourn.
There being no further discussion, the mccting was adjourned.
f'
\}-;yCJ ~
Recording Secretary
] 1