Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-04-2005MINLJTES MONTICFLLO PLANNLNG COMMISSION TIIESllAY, OCT013ER 4th, 2005 6:00 ~'.M. Conunissionel-s PI-e5ent: Dick Frio, Rod Dragster, Floyd F-Iilgart, William Spartz, and sandy Suehy Council liaison: C;len Posusia. Staff: sett O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittrnan - NAC, Angela SChlllllann Ollie Korc)pchak 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order a.t G:00 PM and declared a tilll quol-iun, 2. Approval of the nlin~itcs of the renular Plannin_ Conlnlission mectin~; held Tuesday septenlher Cth, 2005. MU'I'IUN BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, SEP"hEMBER 6t1i ?005. . MOTION SECONDF,D BY COMMiSSIONF,R S[JCIIY. MU'I'ION CARRIED _5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the a elis Cha.irma.n Frie requested lhat introductions to the new City Engineer and Building Inspector be added to the agenda in Novernher. O'Neill agreed. Citizen comments. Bill 'Tapper, 3935 Walnut Lane, Ueephaven, addressed the Commission. Tapper requested chat the Planning Commission consider recommending that he be allowed to pla.rt prail-ic grass at 1 320 I',dn10115pn, On top Ot the ber'IT] Ile COI15trLlcted a5 a COndItlOn Of 1715 CUP. I tipper noted th~lt the 01'dlnal1ce reglllre5 lhal the COmmISSIOn Illaked reCOlllnlendallOn LO 111E COLII1C11 011 SLICI1 IllalleCS. Patch stated that the ordina.r)ce section involved relates to sodding and ground cover. He stated that the ordinance provides for prail-ie grass based on the recommendation of Commission. Pilch referred to the location of Tapper'S site and the I-ecent addition. Patch explained that the berm is between Edmonson and the loading dock area. ~1'he Commission had previo(.ISIy considered and recommended approval of the CUP with a landscape plan for the berm. P~-tch stated that staff have no objection to this request. Frie asked if this 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 frees. Tapper confirmed they would. Patch indicated that the prairie grass would provide additional screening as well. Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 Sparta asked how much area. the grass would cover. Tapper stated that he would like to plant it ors 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 evergreens. FI-ie noted that in some areas of the trail system, the City had planted prairie grass. F'rie asked which side of the building he would be continuing the grass. Tapper stated that it would be the east side. Suchy asked if there were auy drawbacks to this planting. Patch stated there were not. Posusta asked what the black dots shown on the plan indicated. Tapper stated that they are existing evergreens. 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 1ZL;COMMLND TI IA'1" THF, PROPERTY A~I' 1320 EDMONSON RE ALLOWED TO USE PRAIRIE GRASS AS AN APPROPRIATF, L,ANDSCAPF BUFFERING L',LEMF..,N"1'. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 5. Continued Puhlic Hearin ~ - Ccrosideration to amend the Monticello Zonin Ordmancc rclatin ~ to O en and Outdoor Stora e. A licant: Cit of Monticello Grittman outlined for the Commission the proceedings of the outdoor storage amendment process to date. Fle explained that the intendment originated out of questions relating to setbacks on an application for outdoor sto-'age. A taskforce was formed in response and the City held a series of meetings over an { 1-month period. Out of those meetings, Grittman reported that staff generated a dl-aft ordinance. I lowever, there were still some issues of contention and the consensus that had been reached seemed to dissolve. Grittman stated that essentially, staff felt it wot.lld be worthwhile to bring to the Commission the two options that had evolved, Grittman reported that one was the recommendation presented by the lUC and the other was prepared by staff. The end result seems to be tar alteld of where this discussion had started, which was to address the ambiguity related to setbacks. Grittlnal~ reviewed the IDC version, staying that while it has it tttcrits, it creates problems relating to enforcement. Staff's 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, rcqulres a CUP fOI' any Industrial outdoor' storage, and Iequires screening 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 mt.rch. He noted that struggles with fife application of the ordinance ar'C rC1atlVely CaI'e. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Bill tapper, owner ot`properties at 212 Chelsea and 1320 Ldrnonson, stated that he is concerned about dropping this effort, f-le stated that. he doesn't. think that staff and the industr'ics are that far apart in terms of a resolution. Tapper stated that there are still concerns about what can and cannot be done with outdoor storage. Ile indicated thai it his perspective that this discussion needs to continue. 2 Planning Commission Minutes ] 0/04/05 Tapper stated that he has a nutllber of on-going issues with the staff proposal. In particular, he cited definitions, such as view of storage at eye-level at property line. He questioned the use of the term "eye-level". I-Ie alsc) noted that measurelllent 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 I"eluctance from staff to allow storage of materials beyond the height. of the screen. Tapper commented that it seems that the vast majority of storage causing concern would be below ground level. Tapper stated that the City should dune all of the equipment that business uses, including trash handling equipment. He also indicated that he doesn't like the cllairt link fence with slats as a screening option, as they are unattl"active, I{e believes that staff's ordinance seems to encourage them, The staff ordinance also doesn't provide for viewing angles. Tapper indicated that if we're concerned about. views straight ort, we should also be concerned fl"om the side and behind. He stated that he doesn't see how semi-trailers are different fl"on1 other equipment. II1 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 ot`amending the ordinance came up, the 1DC welcomed the chance to have input. Morrell thanked the Cotntnissioners and Council for their time spent on this matter. Morrell stated that he believes thel"e is room for ccnllpl"omise. Morrell recommended that. C'.OmmisslQll set a CIItlellne f01' a Workable solution. Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies, spoke representing Monticello Commerce Center. Pfeffer stated that it is his impression that most ofthc issues in question relate to the I-2 district. Pfeffer stated that in his experience, the main issues for indt.rstrial users in tcrrns of outdoor storage are security, storm water, and dust control. There are silos, trash COt1lpaCl01"s, etC., that al'e erItIC1I to btISI11eSS. PtetteY Voted tll~lt the Cl1I"Ye11t COntrOVel"sy deals WItI1 OWner- occupied and si-lgle tenant buildings. He stated that over time, the storage needs are going to change and affect the ordinance. Pfeffer requested that if Commission is going to require screening, they should think about security. Ile noted that chain lint. is appropriate when considering security. Pfeffer recommended that a CUP contimte to be Ltsed in the [-I, 1-lA dlStl"ICtS. Frie asked ifi Ptcffer had attended the meetings. Pfeffer indicated he was at the last Illeetll1g Suchy stated that she l1a.d the opportunity to visit different industrial areas. Suc11y commented that she believes the I-2 should be allowed to do their business without much restriction, but that it should be different in l-l, I-I A areas. As far as the 1leight, Suchy dosn't think the outdoor storage was that much of an eyesore. Suchy stated that the 1-2 area is a. very spcci~c area and we need to allow greater flexibility in that area. Sparta stated that a goal of the amendment was to not haltdctlff the businesses. Spal'tz indicated that while the City wants to allow businesses to do their business, we need to allow the Clty t0 ell{OI"ce SOI11etI1111g Ill terlils Of bLIffCPlllg, etc. He does believe there is room between the City and the IDC's proposal. Frie asked Grittman to respond to the public's comments Grittman referred to the original ordinance that staff developed after the first couple of rtleetings in contrast. to the existing ordinance. All three industl"ial districts currently regt.lire a CIJP, and require storage to be screened t`rorn residential and ROWS. Grittman reported that Planning Cotxltnissiotl Minutes 10/04/05 the issltes the task force raised involved setbacks and storage areas, as well as the need for C11Ps in I-2 districts and handling of equipment. Grittlnan stated that what stati-~did in response was draft an ordinance that brought those barriers down. Grittman reviewed the proposed arncndment elements. In an I-2, outdoor storage would he perlllitted with zero setback in side and rear yards. I Ic stated that is was the consensus of the task force at the first meeting stated that storage didn't need to he in the front yard. The amendment does require screening if across from residential property. However, if abutting another I-2 or I- I industrial district, no screening was needed in I-2 areas. Finally, Grittman stated that the proposed amendment allowed occupation of drainage and utility easements in I-1 and I-2 districts. In S111T1ITlary, staff felt they relaxed the standards quite a hit for the 1-2 district. I Ic noted that tllc ordinance also defined screening. Grittnlan then reviewed the proposed amendment for the I-1 a.nd I-1A districts. In those areas, there arc limits on outdoor storage as noted. C;I-ittrnan stated that thel-e are still obviously some disagreements about how screening is defined and where it is measures from. Grittman stated that the IDC thought a 6-foot screen should he acceptable regardless of the height of storage. Staff s concern is the prohlem of unsightliness, not the storage itself. Grittman explained that the prohlem is that the violators don't worry about neatness. Grittrnan stated that it is his personal feeling that the way the current ordinance is written, he doesn't. know the application has cat.tsed that great of a problem. Frie asked whether the IUC and staff agreed on the need for screening. Grithnan stated that he thinks they arc in agreement that there is a need for screening, but disagree as to in what circumstance and how it should be 111casured and defined. Frie stated that he visited with two IDC members, who sttggcsted that the height of screening at b feet is acceptable. Tapper stated that the IUC recommendation is a working I-ecornl11cl1dation. 'I"11c philosophy was that the things that really need to he screened 1lappcn at a lower Ievcl. Frie stated that. ComnlissiotT does consider t11c type of environment when evaluating these issues. Erie stated that the alltendment chat Commission is attempting to develop has to focus on overall industrial areas, not individual businesses. Frie indicated that he believed there were four pri111ary issues to be addressed: screening, definitions, measurement, and waste handling. I-Ic asked if chose four issues had been addressed. Ta.ppec stated they were discussed, but staff and industry seem to he in differing opinions. f)ragstcn inquired about the hours of truck parking within the current ordinance. Grithnan responded that those had been proposed in the staff amendment as an exemption from the outdoor storage requirelTlents. Tapper 11ad referred to it in terms of enforceability in hours, C;I-ittman stated that. they unless they are in a dock, they arc sul?ject to outdoor storage requirements. Brie stated that if there a.re interpretation problems, then there are clarity issues that need refinement. "]'tipper stated that he believes there are problems, including that as he LII1derStalld5 the a111e11CIITlellt, a. C0111pally Ilke SUlllly I'reSll WOUId he C;OIl5ldered Olltd(~l~I" tit()rage Ill tel"IT1S of tl1clr Cooftop SySteIl7S Cirlttmall Stated that there IS all ItelTl Ill tI1C OCdIIlaI1Ce SpeCIf1C t() I'l~l~ttl~p SCreelllllg, UI"2igstell titated that It See111S a.S tllol.lgl1 they agree OIl I110St IteI11S, peI'haps 111 ()lle Ill ()I"e meeting, they could iron out t{lose items. I [ilgart agreed. . F'ric asked about the I-efel-ence to enforceability on the IDC's recommendation. Tapper stated that he hopes that the opposite would occur. He stated that enforceability was a legal opiltiott and he couldn't comment on that. 4 Planning Con.~lmission Minutes 10/04/05 Frie stated that he was disappointed that there were two separate drafts. 'T'herefore, he supports Dragster 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. Pos-.ISta commented that the other thing that. needs to be talked about is accessory storage buildings to the main structure. Ilearing no f~.lrther comment, Chairman Fric closed the public hearing. MOTION $Y COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CON'!'INIJF., THE ACTION ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMF,NDML;NT RF,GLILA'1'ING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. MOTION SECONDED $Y COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION $Y COMMISSIONER DRAGS"1'EN TO AMENU'1'HE MOTION T'O INCI.~UDE A 90-UAY TIME LIMIT TI-IE CONTINUATION. MOTION '1'O AMEND SLCONDF,D $Y COMMISSIONER HILGART, MO"PION CARRIED l_1NANIMUUSL~Y. Morrell requested that staff schedl.lle and notice the meeting well in advance. G. Continued Public Hcarin~T -Consideration of a re nest for amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance rclatin to the re Lllation of . Ion sinna 7e. A licant: Cit of Monticello . With no one being pl-esent to provide comment during the public hearing, Chairman Frie moved this item to number 14 on the agenda. 7. Consideration to review for final a royal the develo ment sta c PUU For Monticello "Travel Center 2"`I Addition. A licant: 1RE'1' Pro ernes Grittman presented the staff report for the stern, IIILIStrating the sltC a.nd Ialldscape plan for the project. Grittman explained that the applicants have provided quite a hit of information, as requested. However, the signage question is still an issue. In sluTUnari~ing the proposal, Grittman stated that there are three signs on the Holiday canopy, each at 38 feet; a holiday pantl-y sign at 3 I feet; and three signs on the Wendy's building fa4ade, each at 42 feet. Finally, the applicants are combining to request a high rise pylon to provide identification. It would be a joint sign with an electronic rcaderboard, with a total sign area of 39? square feet. The signage on this site totals C(3 square feet, which is more than what is allowed for ml.llti- tenant cornrnercial 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 Z00' of face area, and that includes freeway honl.ls allowances. Grittman nosed that the applicants are looking to exceed code I-equirernents by the use of a PUD. Grittman explained that in exchange, the applicants propose a significant amount of increased landscaping and architectt.lral enhancernertts to the fueling area. Grittman reported that when staff met with the applicants, they were looking for oversized signagc arul looked to staff for trade-off enhancements. Grittman stated that while the applicants were looking For an endorsement, which staff co~.lld not provide for the signage, staff did provide suggestions for • architectural and landscaping enhancements that could be made as a PL1D consideration. Grittman stated that staff still believe the sign ordinance isn't set LIp to allow the PUD to flex in this way. Intact, the sign ordinance was recently amended to avoid just this type of Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 filexing. Grittman noted that the amendment actually allowed I11ore signage tlexibility for • new businesses. Grittman indicated that staff recommends t11at the current ordinance is acceptable for the purposes of this application. If the Commission does want to use PCJi7 to Ilex sign standards, a monument would be a better use. In viewing 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 pI-oposcd. Frie asked if staff"s primary concern is signage. brie stated 11is focus is consistency. There are half a dozen signs at more than 32' already in the area. He stated that 11e took a trip along -94 and noted that every colllmunity from St. Cloud to Maple (iI"ove has this type of proposed sigrlagc. Eric gl.restioned whether the City ordinance is out of line. Grittman responded that there aI"e comrnutlities that allow more or higher signage. As you go in toward the metro, there arc conlrnt.ulitics that allow Tess signage. I lilgart stated that he agreed with Grittman that the sign will not be visible going west. He also noted that travelers going east will go to the other Holiday. There was a brief discussion on tllc appearance of a sign for Guadalajara I"estaurant. The Commission asked staff to look into the size and height of the sign. DI"agsten asked what would happen if this property were not a PLJD. Grittman stated they could 11avc two oc three wall signs, and one pylon sign. Grittnla.n clarified that each sign face the applicant is requesting is larger than what is allowed. Dragster confirlrled that the • la.ndsca.ping proposed was enhanced. Grittman agreed. Spartz agreed that blue highway signs are much more effective along the highway; the larger signs are ineffective. Sl.rchy indicated that she is tending to lean towards staff's rccornrncndation. She stated it is nice to be consistent, but a sign this size doesn't make sense. brie asked if the ordinance refers to signs based on height near freeway. Grittman stated that the ordinance is based on both the speed and type of the road. l'osusta stated that staff shouldn't dictate what type of sign the property owners should have. He stated that staff is misleading on some of their info)"Ination. He stated that in terms of total sign area, iftllis property was broken up into two entities, the norther"s change. posusta reficrrccl to the decd 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. Wendy's a.nd Floliday have been in business long enough to know what they need. posusta stated his opinion that the double sign is more attractive than two separate signs. posusta added that this pI"eject is a total demolition and redevelopment. ! Ic commented that clsewllere the City tries io bend the rt.tles to 11c1p that process. In this case, they al"en't asking the City for atlytklitlg except trying to make the site more viable. Victor" Sacco, representing l loliday Corllpanics, addressed the Commission. Sacco stated that they are trying to put in a showpiece and flagship properly. SaCCO stated that they have made (:hallgeS at statt~'S regLleSt Ill terlllS lit ar'ClllteGtUl"al alld IandSCaplllg tl"eatnlelltS. He noted that there had been a suggestion From City staff to place a welcome sign ai the Flighway 25 and Oakwood corner and they offered to do that. Sacco stated that they had tried to work with staff and that they were led to Lielieve thel"e was common gI"ound. Sacco noted that. a. pUU is 6 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/()5 a negotiation for which they had sought to build a coalition of support. Sacco stated that the pylon requested Is not really a higlY rise sign al)d stated that it is not visible I mile down the road. I Iowever, befol'c you approach the ramp, drivers can sec the sign. Sacco stated that while the blue highway signs arc good, they tell you what, but not wlaere. Sacco stated that when people see the sign that says I-COliday, they will know the locatiol~. Sacco referred to the existing pylons for McDonald's and SA and stated that he believes the sign is reasonable. F,ric Kellogg provided comments t0 the Commission, representing Wendy's. Kellogg referenced the proposed landsca.pirg improvements. He noted that as separate properties, each party is allowed one 32' pylon. Instead, they arc proposing one 52' sign, which is 8' below what would he allowed with separate parcels. SUChy 5ald lllal. Wllell y0[I COn7C dOWl1 the Interstate, you Want. to be able to see the sign, which you might not he able to in this case. She asked if an eye level sign Haight make more of an impact and be Inol-e attractive. Sacco stated as marketers, that isn't what we expect. We believe drivers will look up to see where to go. Suchy asked if, in Sacco's opinion, it is more valuable to have the pylon. Sacco confirmed. Hilgart asked about the height of SA sign. Patch stated it was allowed by variance at 57'. Frie asked the question that if Comlr~ission 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 C0171mlSSlOn's decision on whether the amenities are enol.lgh ot`a trade-off for the proliferation of pylon signs. O'Neill noted that the Commission had just gone through a process that establishes the 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 (:OllllYllSSIOn allOWS the 57' and the area proposed, is there enough tlexihility to not have fo[.Ir walls signs, etc. C;rittman confirmed that tl)e Colnlnission can negotiate what it would like. brie stated that the Commission is here to work with the developer. Posusta noted that people cal just go quarter mile and see two separate smaller signs and one obscures the other in either direction. I Ie stated that one pole with two signs would have been a better application. MU'C'IUN BY COMMISSIONER FRIE 'I'O RL,COMMEND APPROVAL Oh' TI-IE PUD AS SI.JBMITTED, BASEU UN A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ANU BRICK POSTS ON TFIF, FIJEL CANUE'Y JUS'I'lhY TIIF., DF,PARTURL FROM 'T'IIE S1GN ORDINANCE I~OR NUMBER OF SIGNS, HEIC;H'I' OI~ PYLON SIGN, SILE OF PYLON SIGN, AND OVERALL SIGN AIZI/A MOTION SECUNULU BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Suchy stated that if this sign helps to level the playing field, she believes it to he a fair trade. Dragster stated that his concern that an approval sets a precedent. He inquired what will happen on the east end of town. C Ic toted that that now instead of two shorter- signs obscuring each other, there will he 57' signs obscurant; cash other, . O'Neill rcrnirded the Commission that they llad approved only one pylon for the entire Ryan site; all Other' S1gI1S On that pCOICCt are nlOnllment SIgnS. If C-Omfn1SSIOnS hold Its grOllnd, developers can only get a change if they ask fir al) amendment. However, if Commission is 7 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 looking to be consistent ill 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. Dragster noted that other tall signs in the City were grandfathered 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 fi-ceway, he uldlcatcd there really won't be a precedent set. Frie stated chat the Rya.11 pylon is 57'. Spartz asked whether both parcels arc located in the freeway bonus areas. Grittrnan contirnled that they are 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 appl-oving 57' signs. The reason for this code is to provide a reasonable benchmark. O'Neill pointed out the future, stating that if the Co1111nission feels that high signs are okay, then that is your decision. FI-ie staled that. this is different, as it is already there. O'Neill responded that there is also a 32' Slgll ah"eady eXlSllilg for SUbW~Iy alld tI1C olI center. PatCll 1loted that tllere 1S a.Iso allotller ST py1011 that w1II be ~2,OI11g OIl the S1tC, It Was granted with a previous Pl1D for the southern end of the site. "1'he approval speciCed 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 allowe(1 Ryal1 tl~ pnt (!p 57' WllerL' t11CYe are Ilolle. I Ills IS already a high sign area. Dan Micll:c addressed the Comlttission as a property owner on the site. Miclke 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 appr(ved 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, staff will need to check the record on that.. Patch stated that he has checked the record, the area that was allowed at approxilllately 2(i0'. Sch(ullann colnlnented that although there may be high signs in other com111(Inities, the Conlrnission should consider whether that is what tllcy want for Monticello. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 AS PROPOSED, WITII COMMISSIONER DRAGS'fLN IN DISSL',N'1'. K. Public Iicarin ~ -Consideration ofa for a Conditional iJse Permit for a detached accessor structul-e in an K-1Lonirl District. A ~licant; ,ld5011 Vanderlle den Grittman provided the staff` report, explaining that the re(luest is an amendment to the original CUP approval. VanderHeydcn is seeking to extend the area of pavement aSSQCIateCl Wlth 1115 aCCeSS()Cy StrllctnrC. C-rlttlil~lll Stated that tl1e L'OI1Cern Is 111 regard t() the a1110U11t Ot IIYIperVl()US surface on the lot. Staff believes the approved conditions were in place far a specitlc reason. In this case, the 001111111551011 Ilad II1dICaLed that they did nOL Wallt tl"attlC gY)Ing I11 al1d OLIt Ot the StrLlCtllre 1'Cg(.Ilal"Iy, alld also W2111tcd t0 Illlllt the p0551blllty Ot Storage 011 tI1C Illlpel'V10U5 area.. if Commission would like to approve the anlcndment to C(JP, staff have outlined Illltlgatlllg Cofldlt10115. GI"Ittlnall Stated thdt Staff recommend against the amendment tc)r the reasons noted. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. 8 Planning Commission Minutes l0/U4/US Jason VanderHeyden, 4537 Cohhlestone Court, spoke to the Commission. VanderHeyden • stated that the green space in his yard area is still more than most backyards. The area that is left to till 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 compliment the applicant on the structure and landscaping. I'cie noted that. he was a promoter of the deta.chcd accessory structure ordinance amendment. Vandecl Ieyden stated that his neighbors were not concerned 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 he parked there. Frie asked if the two accessory structures are tilled. VanderHeyden clarified that the smaller one would be leaving. Grittlnan stated that: detached accessory structures are allowed in order to crcatC a location for additional residential storage for the kind of things they don't use Cveryday. The large impervious areas essentially create traffic in rear yards, or they become places where things get stored. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the pr.rblic Ircaring. Suchy stated 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 wondertirl job. Slte noted that it he agreed to landscaping, that would he ideal. Spartz asked for the detir)ition for detached accessory structure. Grittman defined it as sta.tcd in the ordinance. Spartz asked if the structure met setbacks. Grittn)an stated that it appears that all setbacks have been met. . FCIe COIT)mCnted that there WOUId Only be a small arCa fOC gCaSS if the CegLle5t IS dented. VanderHeyden stated that it is about 5' on one side and I S on other side. Uragsten commented that when he had voted to recommend approval ofthc request, iC was with the understanding there would he an apron. Ile stated he didn't. think it was going to he a 30' apron. He noted that in the Current situation, of course this request makes sense. Uragsten stated that while ii does look nice, the original approval was for just an apron. Vandert-Ieyden stated that if he recal Icd correctly, he had asked for an apron large enough to park a Sti' wheel. Hilgart stated that there is a precedent that would he set with an approval, in that the 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 access to these structures. POSUSta StatCd that each SltuatlOn 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 bC landscape rock. VanderHeyden stated at most, it would he a snowmobile trailer storage area, br.rt he intends to keep that inside. VanderFleydcn stated that 17e plans on keeping everything in the shed. Frie indicated that original conditions prohibit or.rtdoor storage. MOTION F3Y COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OI~ THE CUE', BASLU ON A FINDING TIIAT TI IE ADUI'I'IONAL GRF,F,N SPACF, CryONTF.MPLATEU 13Y THE ORIGINAL, CUP APPROVAL IS A V1TAL COMPONF,NT OF''fl IE Cfl'Y'S DECISION '1'O APPROVAL THF, GARAGE ANI] "I'Hli 1''INUING 'THAT THF, 9 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/~S C'OMMISSIUN SEF,KS TO AVOID SETTING A PRECEDENT ON THE PAVED ACCESS. MUTTON SF,CONUEU RY URAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIF,D 3-?, WITI-1 COMMISSIONERS FRIF, AND SLICHY 1N DISSENT. 9. Public I Icarin> -Consideration ofa re ucst for reliminar tat for a commercial subdivision and rezonin > from P-S to R-4 for Church of St. Herr 1 ~` Addition. A licant: Cit. of Monticello Grittrt~an presented the staff report, illustrating the new alignment of 7`~' Street. Grittrnar referred to the zoning and comp plan as consistent with this request. Grittn~an retcrred stated that the plat creates a developable parcel tier St. I [envy's and accommodates the new ROW and storm water ponding. Chairman I~rie opened the public hearing. I Tearing no comment, Chairman Frie closed the p(.~blic hearing. Dragster asked why the R-4 zoning designation was requested. Grittman stated that R-4 is the zoning or adjacent parcels and is most consistent with that land use. Dragster COlillilented that hC doe5n't know if B-4 is compatible with the Church (.ises to the west. Frie confirmed with staff-that a.ll lots would conform to zoning regulations a.rd clarified that. the plat and zoning arc compatible with goals for the area in the long term. Posusta. noted that this action is a piece of the interchange project. Frie inquired whether staff knew what St. I terry's intended for the parcel Grittman stated that. staff have only looked a.t parcel to make certain it is developable. Posusta stated that to the east, there is also a. move for more commercial. MOTION RY COMMISSIONER Sl1CHY TO RF,COMMF,N[) APPROVAL OF "THE KEZUNING FOR L01~ 1, BLOCK 2, CHIIRCH OF ST. IIENRY 151 AUUI'1'IUN, RASED ON FINDINGS THAT THF, BF,ST LONG-'I'CBM USE OF THE SITE IS FOR REGIONAL COMMER(IAL USES, AND "1'I-iA"1''l'HE B-4 DF,SIGNATION WOULD BE COMPATIBLE Wl'1'H "I'HE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ALSO ZONED R- MO'I"ION SECONDF,D RY COMMLSSIUNLR SPARTZ. MOTIC)N CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONFR SLICHY TO RECUMML'NU APPROVAL OF THF, PRELIMINARY PLAT FUR'l'HE CHURCH OF ST. I[ENRY 151 ADDI'T'ION, CONTINC;EN"L ON THF. REQLJIREMEN'l"T'HA'I- ACCESS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 2 IS SHARF,D WITI I THE ADJOINING PARCF,L TO THE EAST ANU'I'HA'l' CROSS F,ASF,MENTS GOVERNING .IOINT USES ARE P[tOVIUL;U RY 'T'HE OWNF',RS 1N CONJUNCTION WITH 'I~I lE IZLCURDING OF THF, PLAT. TIIIS RECOMML;NUATIUN IS RASF,D UN A I~INUING THAT THF, PRELIMINARY PLA'T' CREATES A LOT RF,ST SUl"1'L;U 1''UR THF, SPF,CIFIC UEVI/LOPMLN'I' NEEDS OF THF, PROPERTY, ANll 10 Platming Commissions Minutes 10/04/OS THA"I" ALL LOTS 1N THE PLAT WiL~L CON'FINL)F, TO MELT' THF, CITY'S ZONING RF..QUIRF,MEN'I'S. MOTION SF,CONULU BY COMMISSIONER SPAR'1"L. MO"PION CARRIED, 5-0. ] 0. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest to rezone from P7,M Perforlria.nce Zone-Mixed to B-3 lli hwa Business . A~ licant: MMC La11d Com aii LL,C Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the location of the 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 Co111pareS and contrasts the allowable LISeS and CegLlla.tlOnS In both d1StrICtS. Grlttlllan stated tllat because the site is adjacent to single fatiiily uses, staff WOLIId SLIggeSt 111 Stead alilendlllg the ordinance to determine each proposed use's compatibility on its own merits. Grittman stated that stafifi's reconunendation is to deny the request. John Rya11, property owner, stated to the Comrnissioli that they would specifically seek to allow fast food and auto accessories. `T'hey do not necessarily need rezoning. Ryan noted tha-c is no allowance in the PZM for auto service. Grittman stated that there is a clause for motor service within the code, that could he added by atltendment to the PZM district as permitted by CUP. Ryan also noted that hotel/motel is not allowed in a P7.M. Ryan stated that most of the adjoining properties arc conuiiercial and most 1-esidential uses do not directly abt.-t tlleir property. Ryan stated that he does not think we need to rezone, if Inay they have the opportunity to seek the CLIP under an amendment. Ryan referred to their assessment for interchange. l~'ric asked if Ryan got the table outlined in the staff report. Ryan stated that he did. Frie reviewed CUP uses within the B-3. Grittnla.n stated that none of the uses F1-ie stated are allowed in the PZM. 1•'ric stated that may be wily the applicant is seeking the B-3. Grittman stated that the a.rncndment may he a.cccptable as well. Frie asked if that option was made available to the applicant. Patch stated that he didn't believe so. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Gassler addressed the Commission, representing A Glories Church. Gassler stated that he noticed that the church wasn't considered in potential 1ezoning impacts. Gassler stated that the church owlts the parcel with the largest amount of lineal footage directly abutting this property. Gassler clal-ified that he doesn't want anyone to think of the chw~ch as a buffering area between conllnercial and 1'eSldElltlal LISeS. Ga551e1' Stated tl)ctt Ile drove tl)1'Ollgh tOWli looking ai B-3 distl-icts, which includes uses such as General Kental alid McUonald's. Gassler stated that he doesn't think that is really the type of use we want. to see next to the church. Gassler also noted the clause allowing adult uses within the B_3 district Gassler stated that it was interesting to him that adult uses are permitted without even the need for conditional use permit. Gassler stated that they want to protect the quality of their property. Additionally, tic stated that the types of uses allowed in a R-3 are not compatible neat to R-1 areas. He indicated that when the church scai-ched for property, they were discouraged from siting in a location that was incolitpatihle with their use. Gassler stated that the church is against this rezoning. Planning Commission Mi>iutcs 10/04/05 Frie asked what Gassler's attitude is towards the PZM district. Gassler stated that with limited knowledge, he is satisced with what is there now. Albel-k 131asovich, also a property owner, addressed the Commission, asking Gassler to provide them with information on what types of uses might be acceptable, as it would help them in who they wo~.lld 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 n~ighi be more acceptable. Gassler stated that seems more favorable, athough it seems as though the applicants are still moving toward other uses. David Gassler, resident of the Mill Run development, stated that he shares his father's concerns. He added that he represent the residents of Mill Run area. He noted that he did not receive a mailing because he is o~.ltside the :350' area. Gasslcl- stated that he was also made aware of the adult uses allowed in the B-3, and as a nearby resident that concerns him. I-te mentioned his children and stated that it is a concern, even if only allowed on paper. Gassler staled the residents are also concerned about noise. He stated that the compromise in zoning only a portion of the property may be a favorable option. Gassler indicated that ili his opinion, all are residents should have been noticed, noting tlae nearby child care facility. Grittman stated that while the zoning district. does 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 io those areas. Frie asked about whether adi.llt uses arc permitted uses in a B-3. Grittman stated as lol7g as they meet code requirements, they are permitted uses. Posusta Clarlfled that t11C C'Ity is only required to notify property owners within 350 feet and also posts notices on the websile, as well as newspaper. A citizen asked whether the Commission could address the isst.le of AST Sports being allowed to parl: a mobile home on their property. Frie asked him to address his concern at the Council meeting. Grittman also recommended a call io staffdt.lring the day, If there is a violation, they can follow up on it. I leasing no furihel- cornrncnt, C'hairrrian Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he agrees with keeping the lot next to church P7.M and possibly rezoning the others. Uragsten, Spartz and Silchy agr'ecd. MOTIC)N BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS"1'LN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF T11L; REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING "THAT TI IE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONIN(.; FOR THE ARf:~A (D[JF, TO f ROXIMI"1'Y OF F,X`I~fJNSIVF, RF...SIULNTIAL USES) IS THE PZM UISTRIC7'. MO"I"ION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER I IILGART. MO`T'ION CARRIED, 5-0. 12 Planning Commission MinLrteS 10/U4/OS 1 1. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re Test for Conditional LJse Permit for a detached . accessor structl.u-e in arr R-4 residential district. A licant: K~ellber 's lnc. Grittman presented the staff report, stating tlTat the applicant 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 recolrTrnending approval, Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Kil-k Kjellberg, representing I<jellberg's Park at 1000 Kjcllberg's West, explained that ihel-e IS an exlStll1g shop bllllding, Whlcll IraS been there foY ~0 years. Ub5CUring that bLlllding fl-o ITT I lighway 25 is a large, mature lilac hedge obscuring fronT HiglTway 2S. Kjellberg stated that the whole area is only used fol- 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 tlTat the structure wouldn't be rented. Kjellberg stated that it wor.lld only be used for company use. Frie asked about stonTT shelter use. Kjellberg stated that there is a misconception regarding that issue. Kjellberg's already has a large storage area wish a rrumher of rooms. The stone shelter rooltr is empty and is the designated shelter area. The other rooms Inay be occupied. Patch stated that he had condl.leted an inspection and it is as Kjellberg stated it. Frie inquired if Kjellberg ITad held dry runs f~~r shelter Llse. Kjellberg stated that they have had 1-eal instances where the slTClter 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 tlTe proposed building. The draWingS dOll~t reflect that. Kjellberg stated that they are planning on rnaking it an open bay; in the futr.u•e they may add doors. I'rie asked staff` if there is any concel-n on this item. Patch indicated there was not. Hearing no fiu-ther comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Posusta dSICL'Cl When SOITlethll7g IS bellrg added to an existing structure, does it need to be COmpllant. Patch asked whether Posusta Was refeYring to tI1L' LOning Or bllllding Code. Posusta asked in terrns of handicap accessibility. Patch stated that detel-mination is based on What percentage the expansion is of the original building. MO~'lON BY COMMISSIONER HIL,GART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TI-IE CIJP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TI IL; B11I1_,D1NG Si IOULD BE ABLE, TO MF,F,"I' EACI I OF TI lE CONUffIONS OF TILL; ORDINANCE, AND WILL MINIMILF., OU"fDOOK STORAGE IN THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THIS APPROVAL., SHOULD INCLUDE I'HF, CONDITIONS THAT TI IL APPLICANT VERIFIES SCREF,NING OF 'LHE S"I'URAGL, AREA FROM Sl1RROUNDING RF..SIUL;NTIAL ARF,AS, AND THAT 'I'HF, STORM SHELTER BUILDING IS NOT BL;ING iISC;D FOR STORAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPART7. MOTION C'ARRIEL), _5-0, 1; Planning Commission Minutes 1.0/04/OS 12. Public Flcarin - Consideration of re nest to rezone all industrial ro crt tl-on1 1-] A Li rht Industrial to t-? Heav Indt.tstrial . A . licant: Cit of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the approximate location of the rezoning area within the City's Otter CI-eek business/industrial park. The application is to rezone a portion Of the plat fC01ll I-lA t0 I-2. ail"Ittl11a11 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. Griitman reported that the I-2 district zoning causes some potential conflicts between the covenants and I-2 code requirements. Grittman stated that staff want to make clear that the covenants will also be applicable to an I-? district, just as they would in the I-lA part of the industrial park. Gritiman stated that the pul-pose of the rezone is to consider a potential relocation site for the AVR plant, which is being moved as pact of the interchange process. In the event AVK does decide to relocate, this area is art option. Grittman stated that one of the throbs that may come into play with this rezoning is whether other I-2 uses would be allowed. Grittl11ar1 I-eviewed the flue concerns as listed in the staft`report. The I-2 desigtlation could generate sornc negative impact on property valuations. 'C'hls IS II1lportallt Whell 0 0 111171 1 5 5 1 0 11 COnSIdeCS impacts orl adjoining land uses. Finally, the report outlines that there must be a demonstrated need for the use proposed. It`the City is going to acquire the AVR property, there is a basis for need. Gritt-nan reiterated that it is staff's view that Commission shoul(1 only recommend approval with active enforcenlcnt of covenants and existing ordinances. Hilgal-t asked if there is a11y other I-2 land in the City that AVR could move to. Gritttnan stated that there are limited amounts of 1-2 land anCl It IS h1S (I I1dOCStalldlllg that they are not large enough to accommodate slte. They are looking for about 10 acres. Hilgart asked if they store trucks outside. (n-ittman stated that outdoor storage is not allowed by the covenants for the park. AVK wo(.tld Have to accommodate that. Chairman I'ric opened the public hearing. John Uban, of planning llrm Uahlgral, Shardlow and Uban, spoke to the Commission repl-esenting the YMCA, as all adjacent property owner. Uban stated that the public hearing notice seemed unclear in terms of rezoning boundaries. Fle noted that it is unusual to not see exact zoning boundaries. He 1loted that if a developer came before the Commission, the Cotnlnissioners would want to see details regarding the application prior- to rezoning. And yet, the Commission is being asked to consider rezoning without art exact site location and contiguration. l_lban stated that other considerations include the impacts on surrounding uses. He stated that it is unusual to put I-2 (.ISes next to residential uses. He stated that there is a billion dollars worth ot` investment in land developlllcnt in this area. The City 11as alsojust purchased property for ahigh-end business industrial development. Uban discussed the types of uses allowed in and I-2, including render plants and others. He stated that there is a deGnitc conflict with s(n-ro(Inding properties. Uban stated that. the YMCA does not support this rezoning. l.lban presented letters ti-o111 nSU and the YMCA's attorney Ill this regard. Uban referl-ed to other Uses that could go in other arecls of the park and indicated that the dust, vibration and other negative influences trom 1-? uses would negatively impact the City's own [-lA area.. Uban stated that the request is allllost like a spot-zonulg, in that Although It Is still industrial, the uses don't. secnl to tit with the City's stated goals. Uban illustrated a site in Oakwood industrial I'al-k, which seems to have ample land. He noted that location wouldn't. . be adjacent to residential area and wot.lld be close to the existing plant. Uban stated that another option might be to look at sites itt the township or in the County land. lJban stated agalll, that Ile goes OIl 1'LCOI'd 1'CCOtTIlllenChllg denial Ol the cCgI.ICSt. 14 Planning Conlnlission Minu es 10/04/05 posusta responded that the City 11as been looking for a new site for two years. posusta stated that AVR can't go outside the City, as the County has rules for these types of uses related to Illllling. pOStlSta StatOd that OI1Ce tltc Illllllllg LISe goes away, the cement plant needs to go away. posusta. stated that as far as other locations within the city, AVR has certain criteria they need to operate. posusta reiterated that the City has tried to find so111eplace other than this. If the City doesn't find them a place to go, there is a possibility of paying a loss of going concerlt claun. pOSIISLa stated that If t111S IS the locatlort, they will have to do extensive landscaping and berlning and all equipment will be indoors. posusta stated that there would also be a screening wall and tl-ees. 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 tra.ftic. Uban asked about. the noted vacant land. posusta stated that the site Uban referred to was not large enough to support. AVR. posusta also stated that the City doesn't know for sul-e that this location is where the Ready Mix will go. i Jban stated that almost more of a concern than the cement plant is the rezone. posusta stated that if the cement plant goes away, so does the zoning. Uba.11 stated that he ha.d not heard of that happening. Uban stated tlla.t perhaps a CCIp with specific requirements would be 111ore acceptable. In essence, the City would keep it the same zone, but treat this cement plan as a conditional or interim use. The cllaltge of zone represents all the other uses that can he there. posusta stated that if that's plausible, then maybe we can look at it. posusta. stated again that this 1°ezone is not taken lightly; this is something the Council has wrestled with. I~rie stated that the Commission can keep Uban's suggestion ol1 the table as another option. Jerry Crocker, 53 Mallard Lane, addressed t11e Commission. Crocker staled that he 11as a 11ot.lse on 39, which would he 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 hull, but the truck tratfiic would. brie asked posusta if there is any intent to redirect traffic. posusta stated that trucks would likely be moving clown Chelsea ol- School. posusta stated that trucks would go east on Chelsea. Crocker stated that they won't be coming that way with the gravel. posusta. stated that they' II .just take the easiest way. Crocker stated that he knew where the trucks would get the gravel from and w111ch Way they would go. Ollie Koropchak addressed the COn1n11SS1011, speaking as in tier capacity as F,conornic Development Director, doting that she is not representing the 1IRA or EDA. Koropchak noted for the record that the site Uban referred to is 37 to 40 acres. She also noted that plaruling Commission is being asked to rezone an area that is not defined. Koropchak stated that Outlot F3 consists of ~4 acres. Koropchak stated that the City has been told that the eventual site may range from 10- I S acres. Koropchak read the purpose statement for the 1-2 zone, which provides for the establistunent of heavy industrial or' manufacturing uses, which by their nature require isolation from residential or commercial uses. Koropchak referred to the City's long range land use plan ~uul stated that when looking at rezoning, the Commission is looking to make decisions for tut.t.n-e use. She explained that the proposed site Wright be in the center of Monticello in the future. 1oropchak stated that the 1-IRA will be meeting tomorrow night atld 11as not had a chance to review this request. From a Planning Commission perspective, the impact of heavy industrial next to residential should be considered. S11c asked whether the City should base planning decisions on reactions or actions of economic benefit as opposed to good long range planning. • I,astl 1{orol~hak stated that she wanted to hrin y, I ' g to the COI111111SSlOn's attelltl011 the economic impact ofthcir decision. The City has established criteria fol- land pt.lrchase in the 15 Planning Conlnlission Minutes 10/0~1/OS City industrial park. In presenting the contrast, Koropchak stated that the preferred Incasures al-e intended to attract a certain number of jobs, a.nd 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 business would generate over $3 million in wages per year. In contrast, based on information st.lpplicd by the proposed user, they would generate 20.jobs with an average wage of $30.00 per hour. n,mtually, Koropchak stated that equals approximately $1 million in wages. 'T'hat calculation is a loss of close to $2 million in wages alone. As such, Koropchak pointed out that there 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 111illion, yielding $158,000 in local taxes. Again pointing out the contrast, Koropchak staled that the proposed user would only generate $32,970 ut local taXCS based on a building valuation of $1 million. Koropchak reported that would be a loss in Itlarket value of $5 million and Duel- $125,000 in local taxes annually. Koropchak stated that. she recognizes and is supportive of other projects in the community. She is only addressing this issue front an economic development perspective. Koropchak explained that the City did approve a tax increment district at the east end of town to offset potential interchange costs. TIF will assist to minimize higher than expected cost of public improvements. Frie asked who Koropchak represents. Koropchak re-stated slle represents herself as Economic Development Director. Shc stated that she is not supportive of either a. rezoning or Cl1P within an I-1 A. Frie asked if she cot.lld go on record that the site noted in Oakwood lndustrial Park is another siting option. Koropchak stated that as Grittnlan noted, that property would also require rezoning. It is et.lrrerrtly I-1 n. Dan OISOII, OWllel' of the [VIOlltlcell0 StatC Far117 IllSlll"a11Ce brLlI1CI1, addressed the C'011711tIS51011 as Chad- of the Industrial Development Committee. Olson stated that the IDC has put great. etfiorts into finding inchlstl-ial land for the City park. Olsotl reported that the vision of the IDC for the City's industrial park has always been that it would have a campus feel. He stated that the rezoning proposal is disturbing in terms of that vision. Olson indicated that he thinks the group is very understanding ol'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 wol-kable. Olson noted that the IDC is CLIPI•ently trylllg LO inarkCt t11C busllless center tllld feels thlS WIII be IOLIgI1 t0 do L111t11 a tOlle for the park is established. Olson stated that. he feels 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 they get a copy. FI-ie asked if the IDC had recommended the I-1 A zoning. Olson confirmed they had supported the 1-lA zoning. Flilgart asked if, as of right now, there al-e any tenants secured for the new park. Koropchak stated that they are working with one potential buyer, aside froth Dahlhimel-'s. Hilgart stated that if someone signed up, this may rtlake them re-think the area. Olson agreed that is a concern. Frie asked if the IDC had worked with Uahlheimer's. Olson stated they had not. Patll [3ilotta spoke to the Con1t11ission I-epresenting Otter Creek, LLC. Bilotta stated that Otter C; reek, LL~C IS still the UI1deClylllg land OWller. I IC CXplallled that Othel's hdVe d1sCLI5SeC1 file approprla.tC Ial1d 1.1505 alld 1)e agl"eeS Wlth those eOnlmelliS. L{e noted that Otte Y' CI'eek, LL,C didn't hear about the specifics of the rezoning until this evening. [3ilotta stated that there is a contl-act fii~r decd 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 Plantling Commission Minutes 10/04/05 Bilotti 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. Bilotti stated that sometimes you end up creating new legal issues and Otter Crock, LL,C feels uncomfortable with this proposal. Mary Barger, resident at 105 Mississippi Drive, business owner in Oakwood Industrial Park and member of IUC, spoke to the Commission. She asked the C(nnmission to deny the request for two reasons. Barger noted that although Posusta stated that the City is between a rock and a hard place, there was an option presented tonight that Hadn't been looked at. Barger stated that. in fact, this morning the 1DC had heard that. AVR might go to Osowski's, if tllcy got an interchange. Barger stated that the numbers that Koropchak presented are striking. Barger stated that the i111pact on the surrounding area. is a concern. Barger stated that with the .leffel-son at Monticello project, the YMCA and other existing residential, having art I-2 ~oltillg district in the area is unconscionable. 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 "tiexible coning". Barger stated that property values in the area will decrease. She noted that the reason we don't have single-family in existing I-2 areas, is because this is not a good mix. She explained that when the IUC looked at doing I-1 A zoning, it was to bring in quality businesses with aesthetically pleasing buildings, such as UMC and Twin City Uie 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 I-? ind(.IStrial park. As a business ownel° in the area, she stated that they do get complaints from the residents. For those reasons, Barger asked that Commission consider dcllial. Frie stated that when the City put in Oakwood, they Clld not Ilitiglne Lhe CCSldclttlal USeS adjacent. I lowever, the developer did i gOOd ~Ob by USlllg C011dOS al1d tOWI1hOI17e5 i5 i buffer. Iicaring no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing Hilgart asked ifi AVR would be the park's first tenant. O'Neill stated that Dihlheimer's would be. Patch confirmed that Dahlheimcr's is under construction. Hilgart stated that he is in favor of seeing AVR move somewhere else. Uragstelt inquired that if AVR comes in, would they come in under CUP or PUU. Grittman staled tI]at Ill all I-~, tllcy would be permitted. As property owner, the City can unpose other rest)"ICtlOnS. I71'agStell stated thil Ile 1S also C0l1CCI"11cd abOUt not kllOWlllg the SIZC of SItC, I1ol" the building type and landscape plans. Grittman stated that he thought. the size of the parcel AVR sought was closer to I I acres. Spirtz noted that the City has seen the confilicts with 1-2 zoning next. to residential areas. He stated that he agl-ees that should not be allowed to 1lappen here. Suchy stated she cannot support I-? in this location. Slte stated that while she is all fior letting them do their business, she cannot support the use in the City's prime new b(.ISillcss dcvcloprncnt. MO"PION BY COMMISSIONER SL1C"HY TO RECUMMliNU DENIAL OF THE, REZONING, BASED ON A l~1NDING T'I IAT Tl-IF, POTF.,NTIAL [JSL'S IN "1~I IE I-2 . UISTrtIC`l , AND TI IE SPECIFIC:' NATl1RE OF "I'HL USL OF 'fl [E PROPF,RTY FOR A CONCRETE READY-MIX PLANT (INC.LtIDING DUST, TRUCK "1'RAI~FIC, NOISE,, 17 Planning Cot77mission Minutes 10/04/05 MA'fF.RIAL S'I"ORAGE, AND DUMPING OF EXCESS CONCRE'I"E, WILL CAIJSL; A DF,PRL;CIATION IN THE VAL[JE OF SIJRROCJNDING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS. MOTION SF.,CONUF,D I3Y COMMISSIONER SPAR'I'Z. MOT[ON CARRIF,D, 5-0. 13. Consideration to review a.n a date on arkin re utrenlents for Landmark 5c uare Il. CiCllttl7an reportCCl that Ile and the 51tC deslgller had IOOked at tI1C Slte and detern7ined that is acceptable for the applicant to create proof of parking as the space is leased. The variance is not needed. I'ric stated that Opal Stokes sold 17er property to the i.andmark developers: perhaps that will be parking. 14. Continued Public Hearin -Consideration of a rec nest for amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance relatin to the re ulatiotr of lorr si na 7c. A licant: Cit of Monticello Grittn7an explained that this amendment had come out of the Denny Hecker I-equcst for addition pylon signage on his lots. The City Council had requested that the Commission look at changes to Chc ordinance to allow multiple pylon signs. The proposed arnendmcnt would allow 1 sign per 300 feet of highway frontage. Chan"171dn F'rle Opened tI1C pnbllC hedYlllg. Heaf'lllf~; 110 tUl'ther COITllllellt, Cllalr117a17 FYIe CIOSCd the prIbIIC hearlllg. C-11alr1n~111 I''rtC Stated that Wllen the present Slgn Ordlllance W3S 11ut IIlt0 effect, ll4' and Commissioner Uragsten served on the amendment committee. Frie questioned whether- the Commission should be reacting based on one regr.lest. He 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. brie indicated that he doesn't know what else the Planning Commission can offer on this item. Suchy stated that sllc doesn't understand why we're wasting staff tune and money orl this issue. If an applicant wants to come before the Commission and make a specific request, let thel77. O'Neill stated that the point of an ordinance is to draw the line in the sand and try not to allow va--iances, as a precedent ends up being set Duct time. If the Council wants to allow it, then this gives them the standards to do so. FI-ie asked for clarification on O'Neill's standpoint on this item. O'Neill indicated tl7a.t the current ordinance works well, but it is the Commission's decision if they feel a change is justified. Sparta asked about the practical application of the ordinance. Grittlnan 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. Dragster asked how many more signs Denrty Hecker would get wider this amendment. Grittman stated they al-e already maned out, even with this alnendn7cnt. Hilgart stated that in this opinion, this amendment does not make sense. 18 Planning Cotlamissiola Min>.ttes IO/04/05 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMF.,ND DF.,NIAL OF THF. AML;NDMF',NT AS St1BMITTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 15. Consideration of schedulin additional Plannin Commission meetin s relatin to ordinance matters a11d long,rat~planning_ O'Neill reviewed the long-range planning initiatives that the Plamling Commission 11ad notable to address, dl.tc to the nt.1111ber of planning case applications. O'Neill noted the need for the Commission to address these items grad recommcndcd 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 fior pure planning purposes, not for planning applications or public hearing purposes. Erie stated that 11c supports the idea of not holding ally pLIbI1C hearlllg5. O'Neill stated that it has to be that way due to the reviewed and public notice cycle. FI-ie asked fior consensus among the Commissioners. Hilgart stated that he is somewhat reluctant dt.le to the time commitment. Dragsten also noted the time cornnlitmcllt involved. Spariz, Suchy, and Fric agreed the second meeting should be recommended. Fric asked when the schedule would colnlnence. O'Neill stated that it would be t.lp to the C;o111misslon. Frle inyuil-ed whether the nlotiol~ shot.lld incll.lde a reconlrnendation io hold no public heal-ings. O'Neill recommcndcd against. that amendment, in case the COmnllSSlo11 needed to hold a llcaring on an item related to their discussions. MOTION RY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO REQUEST THAT THF, ('ITY C"OIJNCIL AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECOND MONTHLY RF,G[JLAR MF.F.TINCi OF' TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BF, HF,I,D TI IE 3R1' Tl1ESDAY OI~ 'I'l lE MONTH A'f 5:00 - 7:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY C"OMMISSIONF,R SLICIIY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 16. Adjoul-n. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SF,("ONDF,D RY COMMISSIONER DRAGS"I'L'N. I9 MOTION ("ARRIF,D.