Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-03-2000 ...... ... - . MINUTES REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Acting Chair Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Members Absent: Chair Dick Frie Staff Present: lefT O'Neill, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer I. Call to order. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 5, 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE T'HE MINUTES Of THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Consideration of a request fiJr a simple subdivision rel]Uesting that Lots 6 and 7. Manhattan Lots, 321 Riverview Drive, be split into two separate parcels. Applicant: Michael and Pamela Wigen. lefT O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the staff report noting this property is currently recorded under the same Property Identification number [PID J and as such is a single parcel of land. City approval of a simple subdivision is required to enable each of the lots to be considered independent tax parcels with independent PID numbers. Upon approval of the simple subdivision, the applicant's residence will be fully conforming to the Zoning Code upon only I,ot 6. Lot 7 will be returned to the party who intended to sell only Lot 6 to the applicant, and will remain undeveloped at this time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RI.:COMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Of THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 AND 7, MANHATTAN LOTS, T'C) CREATE 'rwo PARCELS TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 6, MANHATTAN LOTS AND LOT 7, MANI IAITAN LOTS. Motion carried unanimously. -1- . , . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 6. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a shopping center development in the CCO, Central Com111unitv District and a Subdivision dividing the new development _ arcel from the munici _ alIi uor store. A licant: Silver Creek Real Estate Oevelo ment. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center CCD, Central Community District. Grittman discussed the building height, setbacks and density as well as parking. There arc 44 parking spaces supplied on the north side of 5-1/2 Street which leaves a deficit of 26 spaces. The CCD permits such shortages where the developer agrees to pay into a parking fund for public parking in the district on a per space basis. The 9,000 square foot retail addition to the municipal liquor store would generate an additional demand for 41 spaces. The liquor store property is currently devcloped with a surplus of parking, a portion of which may be Inade available to the developer. This issue has been addressed by the purchase agreement and will be further defined by the development contract as a part of the Conditional Use Permit and the sale of the land. -fhe downtown revitalization plan encourages the use of mixed use design, and urban building styles in the corridor along Walnut Street. The proposed project would maximize the amount of Walnut Street frontage for commercial development, with the exception of access to 5 V2 Street (to be developed as an internal access drive). The site plan does not provide any dedicated loading areas. The applicant's anticipate using front of store loading. This does raise issue with circulation within the parking lot unless deliveries occur before or after store hours. Pedestrian access has also been provided which is in accordance with the CCD and downtown revitalization areas. At this time the project has not shown any sign detail, with the exception of two freestanding sign locations - one along Highway 25 and one along Walnut. The sign along Highway 25 would be acceptable under the revitalization plan as an area with more of a highway commercial focus. However, the Walnut Street frontage is expected to have pedestrian scale signage, mounted on the building facades, including projecting signs over the sidewalk where appropriate. Additional sign detail will be supplied for review. Streetscape and landscape details have not yet been submitted. The revitalization plan encourages the use of urban design materials including planters and furniture, site and parking lot lighting consistent with the City's standard, and alternative paving materials for walkways and other locations. These details will be submitted to staff and the Design Advisory Team for review. The applicants had prepared an early rendering of the proposed huilding design, but no building plans have heen submitted at this time. The OAT has reviewed these preliminary building plans and given conceptual approval. Prior to final approval of the -2- . Planning Commission Minutes - IO/03/0n project, the applicant is to submit detailed building and site plans for DA T review. Details regarding shared use of parking between the Liquor Storc and the development sitc have been identified and arc included in the terms of the purchase agreement. Grittman also discussed the Liquor Store expansion arca identified in the plan which will need to be increased from 2.100 sq. ft.. to 3,000 sq. n. which may result in the loss ofthc head-in parking along the north side of the Liquor Store. Staff is working with the developer to determine if it is feasible to make neccssary shifts in the building walls that would allow the head-in parking to stay in thc plan as identified. There was further discussion regarding traffic into and out of this site and Orittman stated the right in/right out will handlc the traffic. It was also noted that if a sit-down type restaurant werc to go into this space, parking and SAC/WAC fees would need to be increased and O'Neill stated that this would be discussed with the developer if needed. Parking deficit was again discussed and it was noted that there is additional parking not only on the Liquor Store site but the Library sitc as well. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. , There was further discussion by the members as to zero sctbacks and Grittman advised they are allowable in the CCO corridor and that stall was okay with this as wcll. Regarding thc parking deficits, Clint Herbst, Council I -iaison, added that the City may opt for designating 15 to 30 minute parking spots which would then encourage parking in the Community eenter parking lot. Signage was discussed further noting that each retail unit would have a sign above the door and there would be a pylon sign f~tcing llighway 25. O'Neill advised that there is a study in progress on the future Liquor Storc expansion as wcll and that it should be completed within the next month. O'Neill and Orittman also clarified the subdivision of the Liquor Store building from Walnut Street stating that it is a platted piecc of propcrty and by City Ordinance a silnple subdivision can be done. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAOSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TilE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON A FINDINC; TIIA T TIlE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH 'fHE REVIT ALlZA nON PLAN AND THE CeD ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WITH TilE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PREPARE SITE LANDSCAPING, SIGNAOE, AND BUILDING PLANS fOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF TilE DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. Motion carricd unanimously. -3- . , . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THl.: SUBDIVISION. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SUBDIVISION WILL FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITtl THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. There was further discussion as to whether this suhdivision was being addressed in the purchase agreement and it was stated that it is. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the setbacks for installation of pvIon for signage. Applicant: Automaxx Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the report noting that on September 27, 1999, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Automaxx to operate an Auto Sales and display business at 1205 and 1219 Highway 25 South. At that time, the City Council allowed signs on the property "in accordance with City standards". Automaxx is now requesting that the City allow a variance to reduce the required front yard setback of 15 feet to 1 foot from the front property Iinc for the erection of a pylon sign. The height and design of the proposed sign are otherwise regulated by ordinance. Automaxx currently has two wall signs erected on the building, one facing Highway 25 and one hlcing Sandherg Road. The sign ordinance would allow one (l) pylon sign and two (2) wall signs with 300 square feet as the maximum total allowable sign area on the property. As this is a double occupancy building, the maximum allowable sign area on the property is 300 square feet. After subtracting the existing sign area, thc maximum allowable arca for the pylon sign is 64 square feet. The proposed sign is 48 square feet in area. If a pylon sign were sctback the required 15 fect from the front property linc it would be located in the auto sales display arca (bccause the parking lot is built only 1 foot away from the front property line on Highway 25). Installation of the pylon sign in the display parking lot arca could bc accomplished by construction of a landscaped peninsula into one of the parking stalls. The landscaped area would break up the line of vehicles and provide an area upon which the sign could bc placed in conformance with the zoning code. One major conccrn for allowing a variance for the pylon sign is that all of the automobile dealers look to one another for sales and promotional idcas. This variance may initiate future sinlilar requests fronl the other local dealers. O'Neill adviscd the planning commission that they are asked to determine a hardship. Another concern from staff was the applicant's lights which need to be hoodcd to avoid shining out onto Highway 25. This will be addressed by staff. -4- . , . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Paul Kruchten, operator of Automaxx, addressed the commissioners and provided a handout for review. lie noted that the pylon would be at least 14' in height and the overhang would not be in the ROW but rather on their property. He also questioned whether the North side of the building would now be considered the front of their building due to no access to Highway 25. O'Neill advised that if the front of the building was determined to be on Sandberg Road the signage area allowable would be even smaller. The applicant also eXplained that they waited with the sign issue unti I construction of Highway 25 and Chelsea Road was near completion. The public hearing was then closed. There was discussion regarding the General Rental site being in compliance regarding their signage and it was stated that this site was grand fathered in. Other options were discussed as well, noting that a variance would still be required. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND DENIAL Of TilE VARIANCE REQUEST AS NO IIARDSHIP COULD BE FOUND AND GRANTING THIS VARIANCE COULD SE"I' A PRECEDENCE FOR fUTURE REQUESTS. Motion carried 3 to 1 with Rod Dragsten voting in opposition. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fllr a conditional use permit allowing an auto body/repair shop in the B-3 district. Applicant: John Johnson. Monticello Auto Body Jefl O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, provided the staff report advising that the applicant proposes to relocate his auto body shop to the adjacent lot. The new site is located at thc corner of Sandberg Road and the newly constructed Chelsea west. Johnson's plan calls for development of a 10.275 square foot structure. Setbacks in the B-3 district were discussed with O'Neill advising that these are not identified in the Code. The site meets the literal requirements of the code however the proposcd setback along the Chelsea side is only 10'. In Zoning Districts R-I through B-2 a minimum of 20' is required on the side lot line I(H a corner lot. A minimum of 20' is not identified by code therefore this site plan meets the minimum. O'Neill stated that Planning Commission should discuss this item and determine if a 20' setback should be required. It is stairs view that the Planning Commission/Council has authority to increase the setback to 20' via the conditional use process if desired. O'Neill commented on parking, door openings, and vehicle storage. This project does not contain outside storage therefore it complies with this requirement. It is hoped that the operation of the facility will assure compliance with the requirement that vchicles be stored in contail1lnent area. Past practice has shown that this is not always the case. -5- ~ ... Planning COlllmission Minutes - 10/03/00 Also discussed were repair operations, building/wall materials and the requirement that "the secondary or non-advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monotony of a single color l1at surface." Mr. Johnson stated that he plans to construct the building oftexturized block with very little metal. Regarding landscaping, O'Neill stated that the site plan shows eleven trees and the minimum required by code is twelve. The plan needs to be updated to show that the tree size meets code requirements. I Ie also noted that in complii:U1ce with code, the site is more than 600' from the Groveland residential development. There was discussion by the commissioners as to the future plans for Marvin Road and O'Neill advised that in thc next 2 to 10 years it could be developed but there are no specific plans at this time. He also noted that this site plan does not encroach on Marvin Road and it is not an issue. , Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. John Johnson, applicant, stated he would bc remodeling his currcnt site and rcnting it out. Thcre would be no outside storage on that site either. I--Ie also stated that he would cventually have additional employees. The 10' setback issue was again discussed and options were given to possibly move the building t()fward, which the applicant stated would cause turn around problems. Moving the building to the west would encroach on Marvin Road. It was again noted that the applicant's plans meet thc City's code and if the code is in error, that is not the applicant's concern. Acting Chair Carlson c10scd the public hearing. The commissioners further discussed the conditions in Exhibit Z noting that item one stating "shift wall along Chelsea Road to achieve 20' setback" should be deleted, but add the condition that there be no outside storage. The applicant did ask what defined outside storage as he would occasionally have a vehiclc parked outside of his building that would be left there after hours and that it would be left thcre until the next business day. The planning commission stated the outside storagc issues would be items such as parts. bumpers, etc. O'Neill stated that the planning commission necds to be very clcar that no vehicle (inoperable) be allowed to be parked thcre as a standard. The applicant stated that it is his practice to move these vehicles insidc the building for safety rcasons but there is the occasional vehicle left there after hours. . A MOTION W AS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE Tl IE SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITION NUMBER ON[': RELATING TO THE 20' SETBACK AND 1'1 IE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TIIAT Tl-lERE BE ABSOUJTEL Y NO OUTSIDE STORAGE. MOTION BASED ON -6- ~ .. , . Planning Conunission Minutes - 10/03/00 THE fINDING THAT TilE SITE PLAN, IF COMPLAINT WITH ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z, MEI.:TS TilE STANDARDS FOR '1'1 IE DISTRICT AND TIIEREFORE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the parking. regulations in the CCD District. Applicant: City of Monticello Stevc Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report noting that previously statl had raised concerns that the language developed for the CCD parking requirements gives the developer or landowner the choice between providing the required number of off-street parking spaces according to the zoning ordinance, or choosing to "overbuild" the site and pay into a parking fund which the City would use to provide public parking at the City's discretion. The City assigned a parking fee of $1 ,025 per stall as the requisite figurc if a choice is made to provide less than the required amount of parking. It is currently believed that the cost of acquisition and construction of parking would cost approximately $3,000 per stall or more. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. There was further discussion on designated parking as it relates to some of the new developments proposcd. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROHBlE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CHANGE IN THE TEXT GIVING THE CITY THE OPTION Of OFfERING THE FEE~IN-L1EU OF PARKING OPTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration to call f(wa public hearing cstablishing buildinl.!: and architectural design standards in the business district. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report noting the Planning Commission had raised the concept of establishing building materials standards in the Husiness Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. '['he discussion focused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCD District. The cOlnmission discussed thc percentagc of Inetal allowable in the ordinance language and Gritttnan explaincd that this amount referred to accent feature, trim, etc. and was not structural. -7- ..... ,., , . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 O'Neill asked if the planning commission members wanted the IDC to review these first or if they would like them to go straight to thc City council. It was stated that it was not necessary to have these reviewed by the IDC but that they would be specifically notified. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBI3IE SMITI' AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN RECOMMENDING APPROV AI, TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON 'rJ IE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Motion carried unanimously. II. Verbal update on gross vehicle weight standards and Council action to deny. Fred Patch, Building Official, was to update the commissioners on the Council's previous action but was unable to attend the meeting. The commissioners discussed this item being denied by City Council and felt that this was a conflict of interest on council member Brian Stumpfs part. It was also asked whether this council member was violating eity code and it was stated that he was. It was discussed whether the classification of these vehicles could be made more clearly. The members noted that in the case of an emergency vehicle it should bc allowable but not vehicles such as dump trucks, semis, etc. It was then noted that "emergency vehicles" would havc to be more clearly defined. It was argued that a "tow truck/wrecker" would not necessarily be classitied as an emergency vehicle and that it could be stored somewhere else othcr than in a residential area. It was also suggested that possibly a "tow truck/wrecker" owner/operator would need to come into City Hall fix a specific permit to park in a residential area. This item would be discussed further at another time. Roy Popilek advised that he resigned as Liaison fiJr the MCP. He stated his frustration with the laek of support from downtown businesses and others. He states mixed emotions and wishes them well. O'Neill added that the MCP has accomplished many items in the past and now perhaps they need to re-focus. 12. Adjourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITII AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAC;'STEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. tl!ll~w0 -8-