Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-05-2000 , . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - December 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robhie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson and Rod Dragsten. Absent: Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer ] . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meetin~ held Novemher 8. 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICIIARD CARI,SON TO APPROVE T1-IE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMRER 8, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEFTING WITH A CORRECTION TO TIlE MOTION APPROVING THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 MINUTES THAT THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0, WrnI DICK FRIE ABSTAINING. Motion carried unanimously. ~ ,.J. Consideration of addinl-': items to the aQenda. .lefT O'Neill added a redevelopment update regarding 6th Street and Minnesota Street. This was placed as item] 0 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Consideration of a Rezoning to a Planned Unit DeveloDlnent Zoning District and a Concept StaQe PUD to permit the expansion ofa bus service and ganll-':e. Applicant: HOl-':lund Bus Company. Steve Grittman, City Planner. provided the report stating thc applicant has applied for an amendment to the City's Zoning Map to allow the expansion of its Iloglund Coach Lines t~lcility along the south side of Interstate 94. The property is currently zoned B-3 on the west, and I-Ion the east, with a number orhuildings and related uses on the site. Staff has noted that the business has gradually expanded over the years onto property which was not a part of previous permits. Moreover, a separate husiness (I-Ioglund Transportation) occupies a portion of the property. As such, the husinesses currently exist as legaL non-confonning uses. The Loning ordinance allows the continuation of non- conforming uses (so-called "grandfather" rights). but docs not permit their expansion. -1- , Because of the mix of buildings and activities, the only procedural way to allow an expansion of the existing business would be through the pun zoning process. Staff considered whether the bus company, hased on previous growth and pcrmits, should he considered a conforming use in the B-3 District. Griltnwn advised that under pun zoning, the City and the applieant negotiate a range of land uses and site development standards, sometimes with specific phasing requirements. It is implicit in pun zoning that the proposed uses show conlplianee with the direction and intcnt of the City's Comprehcnsive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for this area directs that conllnercialuses which can take advantage of the site's freeway exposure would be the preferred land use. Grittman noted two sets of issues whieh the City should addrcss in reviewing this appl ication. The first is the land use plan compliance, and whether the existing land use is most appropriate long-term usc fClI' this area and second, the development standards applicable to this site if the City determines that the use is appropriate. . Grittman stated uses such as the transportation and hus companies eurrentIy oceupying the site are more typical of industrial district uses. These uses typically provide business services to other business (or institutional) cntities rather than directly to the retail public. In a spot check of other Twin Cities area communities with bus services, Grittnmn stated he could find none where such uses arc allowed in comlnercially zoned areas. I n areas where industria] districts arc devcloped adjaccnt to tJ"eeways, a heightened level of building and site development standards are typically applied. The existing improvements consist ot~ generally, metal buildings and gravel sur1~lce. Only a few arcas of paved parking are developed, with limited landscaped open space on the site. This would be inconsistent with expectations commonly held for frceway exposure. The proposed development would add a pole structure addition to the cxisting parts storage building. While a PUD district penllits flexibility in thc application of standards, the intent of the pun technique is to cncourage a higher standard of devclopmcnt rather than lower. In the 25/94 intcrchange area, the City has rccently seen a significant increase in dcvelopment activity, most with a high level of building and site improvements. In sumlllary, the existing land use of the property does not appear to comply with the direction ofthe Comprehcnsive Plan or the highest and best use attributes ofthc site. Bus and transportation facilities arc all important serviee business, but would he more compatible with industrial areas, preserving high visihility sites for higher intensity commercial uses. . The Planning Commission discussed the t~lct that the existing site is a significant ~2- , economic development opportunity for both the land owner and the City. With the dramatic increase in the community's population and commercial activity, together with the improvements to Highway 25 and Chelsea Road, this property could likely be put to a highly intense commercial use which complements the surrounding commercial development and takes advantage of the new and existing transportation facilities. In the past, the City has helped husinesses such as this one to seck alternative locations more compatible with their opcrational needs such as a coopcration between the property owner and the City looking at possible City-owned land available f(Jr trade, or finding a devcloper to buy land and dcvelop. Use of City contacts could also be an asset. The commissioners asked thc I loglunds if this option was of interest to them and it was stated that it was not at this time. The commissioners also asked Grittman if they were to approve a PLlD district would that zoning stay with the land and it \vas stated that it would. Deputy City Administrator O'Neill asked Grittman if an interim use permit as a telnporary use would be an option and Grittman stated it could be an option, noting that an interim use gives the City and the applicant a time frame to agree upon at which titne the sitc would be made ready for re-development f()f another type of use. Grittman also advised that this option would still require a PUD for mixed uses on this site, but the City can incorporate intcrim use concept under a PU f) zoning. . Chair Fric opcned the puhlic hearing. Wayne Hoglund, I loglund Bus Company, advised that thcy havc the room on their sitc for the expansion and thcy've been located on this site I()J' a long time. Ilolly Klein, Iloglund Bus COlnpany, advised the different busincsses opcratcd on this site as well as the rescarch she conductcd which showcd that their competitors for bus sales and service wcre all located on tnajor freeways and highways. Hoglunds feel that freeway exposure/location is vcry ilnportant f(H" their busincss. Gordon Iloglund of Iloglund Transportation was also present stating that he is a partner and concurs with Gordon that this sitc with it's exposurc to the freeway is important. Cirittman clarified that the City was not disputing the valuc of the freeway exposure, just stating that those busincsscs are more typical of Business Districts, clarifvinu the zonin~ districts. . ~ ~ Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion as to what the applicant would have to do to bring thcir site up to City standards and Grittman adviscd it would be the basic standards such as public/employees parking which would have to bc pavcd/curbed. They do have somc areas of the site that are paved, although less than we Vvould see in our ordinance. Would also require some delineation hctween storagc and display area, and parking/driveway areas, and advised that a typical pun would require additional landscaping/screening. . lloglunds' statcd it is their plan to construct thc same type of structure that matches what is currently on the site. Freel Patch adviscd that the lifc ofa metal building such as this would be approxilnatcly 20 years. Iloglunds have no plans to rcconstruct their site nor -3- - . . split it up. It was also noted that due to the t~lct that thc Hoglund husiness has hecn on this site for a very long time and that there should bc certain "grand father" rights, City staff should work with the applicant to accommodatc their need f()l" expansion at this time. I [ogl und statcd their intcnt is to movc forward immediately if they get approval from the City. Grittman stated that this application is vcry preliminary at this point and they havc not gone into detail with the applicant regarding the site improvements othcr than paving/ landscaping in accordance with City ordinance. Decision I: Zoning lI,fap ilrnendrnent/i'ol1l B-3 wull-1 to pun A MOT[ON WAS MADE BY DICK FRlE AND SECONDr~D BY ROD DRAGS'fEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE REZONING TO PUD. BASED ON A FINDING THAT' TIlE EXISTING USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USES OF TI IF AREA. Motion carricd unanimously. Decision 2: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBB[E SMITI! TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PLJD. SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING PAVING AND CURBINCi OF PARKINCi AREAS. SCREENING OF STORAGE AREAS, AND DEVELOPMENT/MAINTENANCE OF APPROPRIA1E LANDSCAPING. There was furthcr discussion stating that staff may want to consider this type or busincss in thc fact that they have very limited puhlic tratlic and thcrefore it may not be appropriate flJr thc City to ask thc applicant to curb 90% ofthcir business. with the realization that this does go against the standards of a PUD. It was stated hy thc City Planner and City staff that they will necd direction from the Planning Commission on what site ilnprovements thc applicant will be asked to make. Jeff O'Neill also stated a determination will necd to be made clarifying definition. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public IIearinf!, - Consideration of an ordinance amendinf!, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. rDl 7. bv addinl..'. subscctions (a) and (b), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in rcsidential districts. [<"red Patch, Building Omcial, provided the staff report noting that on November 8,2000 the Planning Commission called f()r a I)ublic hearinu to reconsider this ordinance ~ ~ amendlnent relating to 9.000 lb. vchicles in residential districts. On Septemhcrll. 2000 thc City Council did not f()llow the reconllllenclations ofthc Planning Conlmission and -4- . . . denied the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting eomll1ercial vehicles from residential districts. The Council directed stall to look into allowances for emergency vehicles. tow trucks, and the like. The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts (with some exceptions); however, alone the 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is insufficient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment along with amendments to the traffic ordinances (on-street parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while not limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving those districts. A proposed draft of the ordinance amendment was attached for discussion at the mecting. Patch noted that in other Cities there is no exception for vehicles such as tow trucks, although there are elnergency situations that may require quick access to a tow truck. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ilearing no response, the public hearing was closed. The commissioners discussed the possibility of determining these vehicles by wheel count which Patch stated would not be an option that would work. Patch also stated the only way that it was really clear to police departments that he has previously worked with was by certain license plates. The commissioners asked what this ordinance alnendment would do to long-time residcnts and Patch stated that there are some that are grand- fathered in such as Rive Trucking. It was also noted that there was no response to the public hearing once again and therefore it was their hope that the amended ordinance wOllld satisfy certain concerns when turnecl down at City Council level. It was the consensus that this was clear and concise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROV At, TO Tllr~ CITY COUNCIl, or THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5. 10] 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B). AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Also stated by Patch was that there will be another ordinance amendment change proposed to the City Council regarding 9,000 lb. gross vehicles parking on City streets, noting that the above amenchnent was for these vehicles parking on residential property. Chair Frie asked that Patch bring information from other cities as comparablcs to the City Council Meeting. 7. Discussion Itcm - House and Garage Sizes I'or Single Family Development. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided thc report reminding that the Planning -)- -. Commission raised discussion regarding appropriate sizes for accessory buildings and garages on single family home lots in the City. There are several approaches to this issue, and vary with each community. Grittman identified the requirements under the current City zoning regulations, and also identified methods employed in other areas. The purpose of this discussion is to deternline whether the City is interested in examining its regulations in this area and considering any changes. Essentially. current regulations state that attached garage spaee is considered a part of the principal dwelling, and is not calculated as accessory building space, even though it is housing an accessory use (residential parking and storage). For detached accessory buildings, including garages, the following regulations apply: Height: Setbacks: Size: L,ocation: N LIl11 bel': 15 feet maximum 10 teet side yard, 5 feet rear yard (No front yard encroachment allowed) 1,000 square teet or 10(10 of the rear yard, whichever is less 10 from all other buildings I. plus one of 120 sf. or less (more by CUP) . Because the ordinance does not count attached garage footage, it is conceivable that garage and accessory building space could cover morc space than the principle use. 1,000 square fcet would be the size of a 4-car garage. An attached 3-car garage would likely be at least 700 square feet. Grittman provided the following break down of other cities: a. Acccssory building size capped, including both attached and detached. usually 1.000 square feet, with morc spacc by CUP. Thcsc ordinances will sometimes include a provision that the accessory building can never be more than a certain size to avoid overcrowding on the lot and compatibility with neighboring residential structures. b. Acccssory building size ticd to the principal building size. These ordinanccs limit accessory building space to no more than the principal building space. Variations include or exclude attached garages. and count either foundation size or all finished house space. c. Accessory building tied to the size of the lot or rear yard. These ordinances use the size ofthc lot to determine the size ofthc building. Monticello's applies this standard as a part of its regulation. Ten percent is common. although others range from 5% to 25%. A typical rear yard on a Monticello lot would be about 4,000 to 6.000 square feet. Thus. most recently platted lots could accolllmodate an accessory building of only 400 to 600 square teel. despite the language allowing up to 1,000 square feet. . Cirittman stated this issue has become more prevalent in recent years as homeowners increase the number of cars, boats, yard equipnlenL and other recreational vehicles. not to mention vehicles being restored and other hobby activities. A comnlOn concern regarding additional accessory building arca is the crowding of a lot and compatibility of -6- -. . . the size of the huilding with neighhoring huildings. However, the flip side of the argument is that as people acquire more stuff, larger accessory buildings may be hetter than outdoor storage of that stuff. The second common concern ovcr larger accessory buildings is the chance that such huildings are used for commercial, rather than residential, purposes. Most home occupation ordinances prohibit the use of such huildings fi:)r commercial purposes to avoid over-intensification of commercial activity in residential areas and unJ~tir competition with the City's commercial tax-paying enterprises. Griuman stated that this item has been a high priority issue in other cities for at least 2 to 5 years. There was discussion that fi:mndation size should be stated as well in that the accessory structure could not be larger than the foundation size or the house. Fred Patch stated that whatever the Planning Commission decides he would ask that they keep it clear/concise. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission would prefer to have larger sizes versus outside storage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Motion carried unanilllously. R. Consideration of calling f()r a public hearing on proposed amendment to setback standards limitinl! construction of parkin!!. lots and dri ve areas on drainage and util ity casements. .lefT CrNeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff reporting stating that the Planning Commission is asked to discuss the possibility of changing parking lot setback standards to match casements. Under our current ordinance, a problem is created when we allow parking lots to extcnd within 5' of a property line. This is because doing so results in parking lot/curh to be constructed in easement areas. There is no law limiting this type of construction within a utility easemcnt. A perimeter lot utility easement ranges from 6' - 12', normally 6' on the sides and 12' in the j)'ont and back. At the same time we allow parking lots within 5' of the property line. This means that parking lots can be installed from I' to 7' into the casement area. This encroachment of parking lots does not legally lilllit City use of the easement but if the parking lot is someday disturbed to accommodate a utility project. the City is liable fi:w the cost of repair. This liability can effectively eliminatc the ability of the City to use the casement. 11' the setback requirements matched easen1ent requirements, this problen1 would be clin1inated and additional green space would result. On the other hand, simply increasing setback standards fi'olll 5' to as much as 12' could illlpact eft~cient use or land and increase the cost of clcvelopment. Also a discussion of righH)f..way width might also be -7.. - . . appropriate with this topic because utility installation also occurs in the right-of-way adjacent to easements in the front yard area. Perhaps increasing ROW width and reducing easement width at the front yard (12') is another alternative. Unfortunately this option has lill1its as the mc~jor commercial street widths arc already set with streets already in place such as School Blvd., Chelsea Road. ]Ill Street, ctc. It was noted that this issuc was previously tabled and Chair frie asked if this itenl could be ready for the next regular lnecting in January. O'Neill statcd that staff would prefcr to work \vith public works and engineering, and that this may take timc. It was advised that this is a priority item Ii:.)l' public works and engineering and they will begin researching. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICIIARD CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH "1'0 TABLE PENDING FURTIIER STAFF RESEARCH. Motion carricd unanimously, 9. Consideration of requesting reappointment to membership on the Planning Commission. Roy Popilek and Richard Carlson. According to Planning Commission mecting minutes from 3/2/99 a staggered terl11 program was proposed by the Planning COl11mission with each member accepting a tcrl11. The Planning Commission recommended establishmcnt of a one year tenn. 2 two year terms and 2 three year terms. In January 2000. thc City Council Ii:.mnally adopted the staggered term program. A year had to bc subtracted Ji'Ol11 each mcmbcrs term due to the timc lag betwcen Planning Commission recommendation and thc date of formal adoption by thc ('ity Council in January 2000. In the Council Action taken in January 2000. Council appointed Robbie Smith to a three year tcrm, Roy Popilck and Richard Carlson to a one ycar tenn and Dick Frie and Rod Dragsten to the remaining two year terms. Therefore, Roy and Richard are up fi:)r reappointment to a three ycar tenn. The question is, do Roy and Richard wish to scrve another term (three years), If Roy and Richard agree to serve an additional term, thcn their name will be placed bcJi:)re the City Council for appointment. Ifthcy do not wish to serve, then we will need to advertise for new members. Both Roy Popilek and Richard Carlson stated their interest in serving another tcrm. Chair Fric statcd the Planning Commissions support as well. 9a. Dick Frie asked li:.)r an update of the North Anchor area. Roy Popilck stated therc had been a meeting and there are somc scnsitivity issues in the report, and thercf()rc havc been asked not to discuss this publicly. Popilck rccolnmend that anyone having questions to please mect \vith Rod Dragsten or himself at another tinle. 9b. Richard Carlson stated that rcccntly TDS Telecom redid thcir parking lot and did not install curb. Fred Patch stated thatthcy maybc didn't previously have curb and thcrcforc -R- -. . . would not need to install. It was stated that City staff was not involved, advising that if TDS were replacing what was existing, they did not require a permit from the City, noting that the City does not issue permits f(:>r parking lots. Carlson stated that their site was torn up for appro x 2 weeks with large equipment on their site. as well as he thinks they possibly also plaeed a catch basin. It was stated that stafT was not aware of this previously. Again Patch stated that he saw this as maintenance and there was no reason for the City to become involved. Possibly Pubic Works should have been involved if a catch basin was installed or anything to do with storm sewer. etc. It was asked if it was too late to contact TDS and detennine what was done on their site and if it was in compliance. It was stated that this could possibly be done, but that it would be a Public Works issue. Patch stated he will obtain information and bring it to the next Planning COll1mission meeting as an update. 10. Update by Jet)' O'Neill regarding Redevelopment at 611l Street and Minnesota Street. O'Neill reported that there are plans for redevelopment in this area which calls few a 12 unit complex, noting that the developer owns a portion of this site and also has the opportunity to put a home/duplex in this area versus a multi-unit complex. Ilc would like to work with the City to comc up with a plan for something with a little highcr density. He is proposing higher density, owner occupied, possibly senior oriented housing. lIe is proposing 20 ft. setbacks versus 30 ft. clue to parking issucs. lie also noted that thcy have becn working with the developer on many di Cferent plans such as lllulti-uniL quads, apartment type, ranging from $120.000 to $130,000 for an approx. I, I 00 sq. ft. unit with very small 2 car garages. O'Neill advised that he will be brings this to the Planning Commission's attention as it is going to the lIRA few review and would like direction as to how to proceed. Financing would be used for costs such as demo, relocation, although a finance plan has not bcen prepared. Grittman added that the City would need a little more information from the developer, and also would ask f()r sonle design changes adding that this could be a nice project. What the developer is proposing would be consistent with zoning and would be a nice project. O'Neill states that from a marketing standpoint this is a good project. Also stated that therc is a lot of detail yet to be submitted and they would want to be assured that these arc of a good quality. It was asked if TI F would be considered and it was stated yes, which is common in cascs of blighted areas. Also stated was the fact that this is a lower priority than the redeveloPlllent of Front Strcet. Chair Frie states that the commission conceptually agrces, \vith restrictions and this would be a positive te)r this area. The c0l11111issioners also noted that because of the location of this proposed project would it be possible to restrict these units to age 55 and older and it was sti.lted that it -9- . . . eould. It was stated that they would like to see that versus a "starter" type home. Garage sizes were again discussed and that they need to be larger or there will be storage problems. The 55 and older seems to work best for these types of homes, smaller garages, ete. II. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9: 15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. ~ccrel< ry -10-