Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-07-1999 -- . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 7,1999 Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: lefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Dan Licht and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., noting that Council Liaison Herbst would be late as well as the first applicant, Steve Johnson/Monticello Ford. Mr. Popilek was excused from the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 2. Aooroval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 2. 1999. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Robbie Smith asked for a discussion regarding parcel 28 and the zoning code interpretations. This was placed under item 14b. Roy Popilek asked to discuss outside storage issue at Royal Tire. This was placed under item 14e. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Continued Publiel-learing . Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District to allow for an ofT-site auto sales/storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. leiIO'Neill provided the staff report regarding the Monticello Ford reader board sign amendment that was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting pending presentation of additional site data and additional information regarding proposed changes to the sign system. The applicant did obtain additional information regarding the sign system, however the data relating to the balance of the amendment had not been provided, therefore Planning Commission was asked to consider an amendment to the pun that applies only to the sign system. In discussions with the applicant it was found that he is willing to reduce the total sign -1- -- . . area of the entire sign system in an amount equal to or greater than the added sign area requested with the reader board. Jeff O'Neill also stated that approving the amendment to the CUP relating to increasing the sign of reader board will not result in an increase of the total sign area proposed. Chair frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Johnson, Monticello ford, addressed the commission explaining the reduction in building signs and trading one for the other. He also provided a display showing the entire property and how it relates in size to the reader board. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members further discussed concerns of future reader boards on Highway 25 and regulating the sizes, and thc mcmbers were in agreement on placing a "cap" on the size of reader boards. Dan Licht stated that because this particular reader board is in a PUD and the sign is appropriate for this site, it does not set precedence for future signs. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PUD. AMENDMENT APPROVED CALLS FOR EXP ANDING THE READER BOARD AREA FROM 26 SQUARE FEET TO 70 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH A REDUCTION IN OTHER SIGN AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 44 SQUARE FEET. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN PORTION OF THE CUP IS JUSTIFIED BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIV~: PLAN. THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED WILL NOT RESULT IN A SIGN SYSTEM THAT WILL UNDERMINE THE INTENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING SIGNAGE IN THE HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR. ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE PVD APPROVAL GRANTED IN MAY 1999 MVST BE MET. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 6. Public Hearing - Requesting a special home occupation permit that requires equipment other than customarily found in the home. Applicant: Wayne Weber dba N & W Assembly. Rod Dragsten excused himself from this item stating a conflict of interest. Dan Licht provided the report noting the request by Mr. Wayne Weber for approval of a home occupation permit to operate a business from his property at 1210 W. River Street. 'rhe business involves the receipt of industrial parts which are then repackaged for distribution to other business locations. Mr. Weber utilizes a 1,200 square foot detached garage [or the storage of materials t()r his business, and a forklift to unload delivered materials. These aspects of the business require that the applicant request a Special Home Occupation Permit, which is a license to operate an accessory commercial use on the applicant's residential property. Most of the essential aspects of the Home Occupation ordinance appear to have been met -2- III and there have been no neighborhood complaints regarding the operation. There was concern that vehicles might be used in place of an expanded garage for storage space. The one issue raised by the ordinance would be the issue of exterior storage which is prohibited. It had previously been observed, and Jeff O'Neill provided pictures, that the applicant had utilized the driveway for the parking of commercial vehielcs (one large truck and one small truck), a violation of the City code. Chair frie opened the public hearing. Rod Dragsten, 1226 W. River St., stated that Mr. Weber has lived there for over a year and keeps the area clean, and he had no concerns with his business. Mr. Dragsten did however have a concern about the possibility of increased activity. Mr. Weber addressed the commission advising that he is now renting warehouse space in Big Lake, but cannot move in until approx. the end of December. He also stated that one of the vehicles parked at his residence is lor sale and will be moved. He was not aware that this was not legal, and therefore will park it at the warehouse in Big Lakc. Mr. Wcber also stated that most of the in/out activity will take place at the warehouse and not his residence. Fred Patch advised Mr. Weber that the vehicles cannot be in excess of 9000 lbs., and Mr. Licht added that deliveries can be made by this size vehicle, but not parked. . Dan Goeman, 1209 Sandy Lane, has property that backs up to Mr. Weber's and has never had a problem with this home business. He also added that Mr. Weber maintains the property well and that in this particular area there already is a lot of RV and commercial rig traffic, and with Mr. Weber moving into a warehouse, activity would only decrcase. Chair frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members that there be no chemicals, no complaints from neighbors, and no overnight storage of trucks at his residence. Chair Frie stated he had been approached by neighbors with concerns such as truck parking, possible increase in traffic, possible noise, possible lighting and/or signage, and outside storage. It was determined that none of these items were an issue. Chair Frie requested that home occupation permits be consistently reviewed by staff and followed up on a consistent basis, not just if complaints are received. He asked staff to check into this process. Fred Patch did state the code is not defined and Dan Licht stated that after the first year the permit needs to be renewed by the applicant. . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF ANY EXTERIOR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR OTHER MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE. INTERIOR STORAGE IS ALLOWED UNDER A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Rod Dragsten abstaining. -3- -- . . 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat approval for Klein Farms 6th Addition. Applicant: Dave Klein Dan Licht provided the stalfreport noting elcvcn conditions listed from the 11/2/99 Planning Commission meeting. Staff had met with the developer to discuss thcsc and other issues relating to the proposal. The applicant has submitted a revised plat in accordance with these conditions. Dan Licht advised the members of some remaining issues which included the landscape treatment of the pond area, final determination of the maintenance road to the pond, and consideration of a temporary cul-de-sac for the end of Park Drive. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with the adjoining land owner to obtain an easement which would avoid placing the temporary cul-de-sac in the front yards of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4. Jeff O'NeilI stated that the applicant has worked with stafTto address the issues which have been raised. He also noted that the outstanding issues wilI not affect the layout or stall's recommendation. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Klein, applicant, advised the members that he did not have time to meet with Jeff O'Neill regarding maintenance of seeding (this will be a natural seeding, area). Mr. O'Neill states he will be talking with Steve Grittman and that this will be covered in the Developers Agreement. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members regarding a pathway that will be added from Phase 4 to Phase 6 along Fallon Ave. Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMISSION, FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MAINTENANCE ROAD DESIGN, AND AGREEMENT ON THE TEMPORARY TURN-AROUND ISSUE FOR PARK DRIVE. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION, AMENDING TO ADD IMPROVEMENT COSTS PER LOT OF DEVELOPED LAND FOR UPGRADING FALLON A VENUE TO BE DETERMINED AT CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. Motion carried. Decision 2: Rezoning of Klein Farms 6th Addition to R-l, Single Family Residential RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO R-l, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. -4- -- . . 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for land west of the Kiellberg West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello. Dan Licht provided a report regarding a possible amendment to the comp plan. The City has been reviewing issues related to the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park area, including the future land use of the area west of the existing development. The owners of the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park have requested approval of annexation and zoning which would allow the development of an expansion of the Mobile Home Park, both of which were rejected by the City. The most recent action of the Planning Commission was to recommend a zoning ofR-2, Medium Density Residential, if annexed. The City's position has been that this designation would encourage attached housing in the range of four to cight units per acre. An expansion of the Mobile Home Park was not viewed as fitting with this designation. However, staff has become concerned that the designation is not specific cnough. In order to address this issue, staff is recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would more clcarly spell out the intended developmcnt. Some options included redesignating the site for low density residcntial or another land use, excepting the site from the City's long range development plans, or amending the text of the plan to provide greater detail as to the preferred development pattern. The current land use plan designation is for medium dcnsity residential, with a general refercnce to attached housing styles including twin homes and townhouscs. The MOAA had also designated the site for mcdium density residential, consistent with the City's plans. Stan" s preferred option was to more specifically spell out the meaning of medium density rcsidentialland use in thc Comprchensive Plan. Suggested language was as follows: In the extraterritorial areas of the community. medium density residential is expected to mean attached housing such as twin homes or townhomes in the range (?ffour to eight units per acre. In keeping with the City's overall housing goals, most o.f"these projects are expected to he processed with the City's Planned Unit Development zoning technique with an intent to increase pro.ject quality and value. As noted in other portions o.fthe Comprehensive Plan, the City of Monticello has a significant amount of existing housing in the "qffbrdahle n range, including rental housing and mobile home parks. The City's proportion of these housing types are higher than most other communities in the region. It is expected that new medium density residential development will be designed to encourage individual home ownership through hoth plat design and utility design. Mohile home parks are not expected to be a part (?f"the housing expansionfor the foreseeable fitture. The intent of this clause, to be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan text which discusses the land use in the southwest growth area of the City, including the land west of Highway 25 and the Kjellberg West area. -5- .. . . Chair Frie opened the public hearing and with no one present, the public hearing was closed. Clint Herbst was asked about the OAA' s attitude on this issue. Clint stated it should not be a problem, although they may question why it had not been changed when the map was initially done. He was certain, however, that the OAA would be in agreement with the City's amendment. Jel10'Neill stated that the narrative change maintains consistency with the OAA plan. Clint Herbst agreed, the City just needs to clarify medium density. There was further discussion by the members on possibilities of designating a specific area with specific performanec standards further defining the district regulations and Dan Licht advised that this could be done. They also discussed that if they were to rccommend amendment of the comp plan to include new text such as the language proposed, rctaining the existing medium density land use designation, the Planning Commission would have to direct staff to the specific language and staff could bring it back to the City Council noting the Planning Commission had already addressed the Issue. ROD ORAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PLAN AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PENDING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 9. Publ ic Ilearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the R-I and R-2 side vard setbacks to permit a six foot setback on the garage side. Applicant: Harold Shermer. .lcffO'Ncill provided the report advising the members ofMr. Shermer's request for the City to amend its side yard setback requirements in R-I and R-2 Zoning Districts from ten feet to six feet on the garage side. Jeff noted that there are other communities who allow narrower side yards on the garage side, but these allowances tend to oceur in small lot single family distriets, such as an R- 2, or where wider lots are required in which case the standard setback is usually wider than ten feet. He also advised that the City has granted variances in the past to accommodate garage construction on these narrower lots. A 6 and 10 foot setback requirement (6 feet on the garagc side) would seem to be appropriate in these areas, most of which arc zoncd R-2. While the City has stated that larger singlc family development is an important housing goal, a reduction of the side yard setbacks in the currcnt R-I District would reduce the spaciousness of the subdivision in exchange for the potentially larger house size. Developers always have the option of platting lots which are wider than the minimum if they wish to construct houses which cannot fit within the 60 foot widc buildable area now in place. It was also noted by staff that the City's R-I District has been the primary zoning district for recent single family development with the 10 foot setbacks in place. Several hundred -6- -- . . single family homes have been built within these guidelines. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Shermer stated his concern with a gas line coming through an area in the first phase of his subdivision which affects 3 to 4 lots. He did state that he was not asking for the entire subdivision to be changed. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members and they were in agreement that they were not in favor of changing the setback requirements for one subdivision, but they would like to work with Mr. Shermer on other possible solutions. Some options suggested to Mr. Shermer included re-platting, although Mr. Shermer did state that all utilities were in place already, however Fred Patch stated that this can still be done without a large impact. Another option would be for Mr. Shermer to request a variance as this is an isolated case, although there does not seem to be a hardship as these lots are still buildable. Another option was for a PU D which the developer would need to do something that would raise the value of this property. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND NO CHANGES TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN THE R-l AND R-2 DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 10. Consideration of a request for an amended plat for Parkside to allow the elimination of a pathway in the side yard. Applicant: Harold Shermer. leffO'Neill provided the stailreport regarding Mr. Shermer's request that the City allow a revised plat for his Parkside subdivision. This subdivision was designed with a cul-de- sac, from which a pathway route was reserved to allow a pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac to the next street. .leff also noted that stail has recently reconsidered such pathways in light of concerns over their compatibility with residential side yards, as well as difficulty in constructing and maintaining such pathways in limited areas. In the case of Parks ide (as with Klein Farms 6th Addition), it is believed that the short additional distance from the cul-de-sac to the street and principal sidewalk does not necessitate a pathway through the side yards as previously planned. There may be situations where such pathway connections are still appropriate. In these cases, statl will likely be recommending a wider pathway right-of-way (forty feet or more), and potentially wider lots adjacent to avoid both the crowding issue and the maintenance problems encountered with the previous design. StatT should look at future issues on a case-by-casc basis. leff O'Neill also noted that this was brought before the Parks Commission and Steve Grittman, and they are all in agreement. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLAT AMENDMENT FOR PARKSIDE AT MEADOW OAKS, ELIMINATING THE PATHWAY IN THE SIDE YARD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE -7- .. . . ] 2. PATHWAY IN THIS LOCATION DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NARROW SIDE YARD PATHWAYS AS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED TIlE MOTION. Motion carried. ]1. Consideration of DA T comments rel-':arding the proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance allowinl-': electronic reader boards. At its November meeting, the Planning Commission considered a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance which allows thc use of electronic reader boards as a part of the sign display in B-3 and BA Districts. The Planning Commission's action was to recommend adoption of the ordinance amendment, with the inclusion of properties in the CCD District adjacent to Highway 25. The rationale for this inclusion was based on the different character of the Highway 25 corridor from that of the rest of the ceo. StafT has no additional recommendation on this issue, however requested that the Planning Commission review the camp plan closely to determine if introduction of electronic readcr boards is appropriate in the CCD. Staff took this recommendation to the Design Advisory Team for comment, since the DAT had not had the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance prior to the Planning Commission's inclusion of the CCD area. DAr comments included a concern that such signs would not be in keeping with the downtown district's intent, even though the Highway 25 corridor was different in nature from the remainder of the district, and that the cost of such signs would likely limit their proliferation. The issue of capping the size of reader boards will be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting and it was adviscd for the Planning Commission to rescind their previous sign ordinance amendment and possibly call for a public hcaring at the next meeting. DICK FRIE MOVED TO RESCINn THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING ELECTRONIC READER BOARDS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. DICK FRIE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ROD nRAGSTEN SECONDEn THE MOTION. Motion carried. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Busincss Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. Jeff 0' Neill provided the report, noting that Fred Patch had checked into bonds, the cost being approximately I % to 5%, noting the power of the bond is its ability to damage the credit of the person getting the bond and submitting it to the City, but the bonding issue is really a ncgative approach. Fred stated the option of dctcrmining 25% of the taxable market value would be morc appropriatc. An examplc given was that if a busincss was -8- / going to put at least 25% back into their business, they would be required to put in paving/and or curb. I f the improvements were less than 25%, they would not be required to install at that time, but it would be accumulative and once reaching 251X) they would be required to install. Also, paving and curbing required for ~ parking areas required and/or when the City Engineer requires the paving or curb and gutter for controlling storm water. '..... Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Being no one present, the public hearing was closed. It was again stated that staff was looking for guidance from the Planning Commission. Dan Licht added that in Otsego curb is required at least around the expanded area, if not around the entire area and that they are firm on this requirement. Fred Pateh asked that if the ordinance was stated as such, and recommended by the City Engineer, this could be done. CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO TABLE ANY ACTION PENDING FlJRTHER INPUT FROM STAFF. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 13. Consideration of call for a public hearing on a zoning text amendment that clarifies curb cut requirements in residential districts. Fred Patch provided the staff report advising the members that several residences have recently been constructed with driveway widths exceeding 24 feet in width at the property line. The way the current ordinance reads is interpreted by the City to mean that the driveway width aeross the boulevard area of the public street must not exceed 24 feet in residential districts. Unfortunately, our interpretation and the words of the ordinance differ. The ordinance language of "curb cut access" is not defined by the zoning code. A "curb cut access" may be interpreted to mean the curb cut providing access to the lot. In the case of surmountable curb no curb cut is made, and where curb cuts are made in typical B6112 curbing, the driveway may be greater in width after the curb cut and prior to crossing the property line. Fred Patch suggested that the ordinance be amended to state what is intended: The maximum drivewav width between the public street and the proTJertv line shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the following exceptions.: L Within all districts, a five ('oot radius curb mav be constructed at the public street aporoach in addition to the maximum drivewav width allowed. .---"". t 2. Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zonine: districts mav exceed -9- twenoZ- our (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty- -four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. This suggested change will assist in enforcement of the ordinance and retain the aesthetic standards intended. Fred Patch asked the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing to address this issue. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING THE ZONING TEXT AS IT RELATES TO CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 14. Review recent code amendment formally allowing payment to Planning? Commission members for attendance at special Planning Commission meetings called by applicants. Jeff O'Neill advised the members that when the original fee was established for special meetings the intent was for the members to be paid for their attendance. At the City Council's last meeting the code was amended to add that all members who attend a special meeting requested by an applicant who pays a special meeting fee set by the City shall receive additional compensation of $50 for each special meeting attended. The members stated their concern that they were not contacted prior to the decision by the City Council and they had other issues they would like to discuss with the Council. The Planning Commission would like to be paid for special meetings called by the City Council as well. Fred Patch advised that possibly they would like to add to the code special language stating "where a quorum is required ", or perhaps any special meeting "calling for a public hearing" or action that must by taken by the Planning Commission. There was further discussion by the members regarding the possibility of raising the commissioners fee rather than paying for special meetings. Clint Herbst suggested staff should look into other communities to see amount paid per meeting and that he will bring this issue to the Council members at their special meeting on 12/8/99. Dick Frie asked that staff also look into the ordinance regarding the member terms. He stated that at the Planning Commissions 3/2/99 meeting the terms had been changed but they are not noted in the ordinance. Staff will look into this. No action was necessary. 14B. Update on Parcel 28 Robbie Smith advised the other members and staff that the owner of parcel 28, Dan Mielke, has been contacting him repeatedly on a problem regarding interpretation of the City's ordinance relating to setbacks. Mielke states he believes that he was sold a parcel -10- . . . with dimensions that will not allow it to be developed in a manner consistent with City setbacks. lie bclieves the land was over valued due to this point. Steve Grittman reviewed the dimensions and reported that the lot has sufficient width at the setback line because the minimum setback width is measurcd at the front yard setback line. 14C. Discussion regarding outside storage at Roval Tire. Roy Popilek commented on concerns he has regarding Royal Tire and conditions placed on them that no outside storage of used tires was to be done. Roy's coneern is that we are not following up on conditions placed on applicants at the time approval is granted. Fred Patch advised that Royal Tire's building permit was just granted for improvements to their building and now is thc time to address the outside storage issue. Fred will address. 15. Adiourn ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. -11-