Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-05-2008MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted the absence of Commissioner Hilgart. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 7th, 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7TH, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda• Commissioner Gabler requested that Grittman provide clarification on signage for non-profits under item 6. Chairman Dragsten asked that the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan be placed on the January 2009 Planning Commission agenda. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration to review a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to allow Conditional Use Permits for Auto Repair Major and Minor and Open and Outdoor Service and Sale. Applicant: Sisu Automotive Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that the applicant is seeking Conditional Use Permits for Auto Repair and Open & Outdoor Service and Sale to validate the existing auto repair activity on the site, and to provide for future auto sales as an accessory activity. Planning Commission Minutes -11/05/08 . Grittman reported that Automobile Repair -Major/Minor is allowed by Conditional Use Permit according to conditions listed within the zoning ordinance and noted within the staff report. The applicant meets each of the listed conditions. Grittman noted that the applicant is an existing business in an existing building which has had previous site plan and building approval. As such, there would not appear to be any site planning issues related to the occupancy of the property. Specifically, the previous approval for Planned Unit Development included a detailed review of buffer yard requirements required between residential and industrial properties. A buffer yard landscaping plan was required for the site at that time and has been implemented as required. Planning staff is unaware of any separate code violations on the site at this time. As such, the CUP for Auto Repair Major/Minor appears to be appropriate for the site. Grittman stated that as noted in the applicant's application, a sign maybe proposed at a future date. The specific sign suggested appears that it may not fit within the requirements of the sign regulations. However, the property owner will need to obtain approval for a Comprehensive Sign Plan that addresses signage for the entire building area. This issue can be addressed at any time prior to when the property owner and the tenant wish to proceed with a new sign. • With regard to auto sales, Grittman stated that the applicant also complies with the CUP language of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to reserve 5 of the existing parking spaces in the parking area north of their tenant space for the storage/display of automobiles that they are in the process of repairing and selling. The parking area is paved, and there are no residential areas in proximity to this location. The applicants state that their business practice is to acquire automobiles for buyers on an order basis, repair them, then transfer them to the buyer. As such, Grittman explained that there should be only limited need for the storage area. While the auto sales area will consume parking space on the property, Grittman indicated that there appears to be more than adequate parking supply in the development. In addition, there is a large paved area to the south of the building that could be utilized for additional parking if the need were identified. Thus, it does not appear that parking should be impacted by the proposed sales/storage area. It should be noted that for the most part, the building itself screens the outdoor storage area proposed from the residential uses to the south. Grittman did note to the Commission that the site is intended to accommodate the limited flow of industrial traffic only, not retail traffic. As such, the CUP considered as part of this application appears to be appropriate based on the nature of the applicant's business -custom orders, rather than general market sales. The CUP should be limited to this level to avoid conflicts created between retail and industrial traffic patterns. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 . With those notations, Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the CUPs. Commissioner Gabler inquired if the environmental impacts of this type of use had been considered for the structure. Grittman responded that those items had been addressed at the time of building permit. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Derek Hokkenen, 210 Dundas Road, addressed the Commission as applicant and owner of Sisu Automotive. Commissioner Spartz clarified that Sisu would pull the appropriate permits for signage at the necessary time. Hokkenen indicated that they would do so. Gabler inquired whether there would be any need to expand the sales area in the future. Hokkenen indicated that they intend to purchase and fix vehicles based on orders. As such, there would be only very limited need to park vehicles for any length of time, which is accounted for in the five spaces. Commissioner Dragsten inquired whether Hokkenen was aware of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Hokkenen indicated his intent to comply with the listed conditions. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. t MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR MAJOR/MINOR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT'S OPERATION APPEARS TO MEET THE STANDARDS AS DEVELOPED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR OPEN & OUTDOOR SERVICE & SALES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE NATURE OF THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS OPERATION WILL NOT LIKELY CREATE NEGATIVE TRAFFIC OR OTHER IMPACTS ON THE INDUSTRIAL AREA IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. A CONDITION MAY BE CONSIDERED RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OPERATION AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: a. THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS A SALES OPERATION THAT RELIES ON PRE-ORDERED VEHICLES, AND DOES NOT MAINTAIN A GENERAL SALES LOT FOR BROWSING CUSTOMERS. b. NO MORE THAN FIVE VEHICLES MAYBE STORED FOR SALE OUTSIDE ON THE PROPERTY AT ANY ONE TIME. c. IF MORE THAN FIVE VEHICLES ARE STORED OUTSIDE FOR SALE, THE . APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE OUTDOOR SALES CUP. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 . d. IF PARKING SUPPLY BECOMES AN ISSUE, BASED ON INFORMATION FROM STAFF, BUILDING OWNER, OR OTHER TENANTS, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE CUP TO ACCOMMODATE AN ALTERNATIVE SALES. e. ANY LIGHTING IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Consideration to review for discussion and direction the first draft of an amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance re ug lating Signs. Planner Grittman referred to the cover memo highlighting the primary changes between proposed draft ordinance and the current ordinance, reviewing Planning Commission's objectives and public comment. Grittman stated that the sign ordinance would become a separate chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a chapter included in the ordinance itself. This makes the document itself more self-contained so that those looking for it can find it easily. The intent of the revision is also to make the ordinance more readable and user-friendly for property owners and staff and Commission. Grittman stated that in terms of the structure, the proposed ordinance now includes a set of definitions, a purpose statement, a listing or . permitted and prohibited signs. Then two sets of regulation, those for residential, and those for commercial industrial. Then finally, there are some special designation areas, for example for the CCD. Grittman opened the discussion to the Commissioner's questions. Commissioner Voight inquired about the definition of abandoned signs. Gabler noted that it seemed to be a new item. Voight asked for clarification on the last statement. Grittman stated that any sign on a premise that no longer identifies the current occupant doesn't give it special rights, despite a prior approval. The sign still has to identify the existing occupant. Gabler asked for the definition to be made clearer. Grittman stated that the purpose related to state law for non-conforming uses and structures, it puts the burden on the property owner to remove the sign or to make it complaint. Voight referred to the definition of "flashing sign". He stated that perhaps this definition is not specific enough. He noted this definition becomes a judgement call. Grittman responded that this language comes from the electronic sign industry itself. This language has been reviewed by industry representatives themselves, so it should withstand challenge. Gabler noted that in some ways, this is similar to a dynamic display. The Commission began to review the document by page. Gabler asked about the "public health, safety and welfare" clause. Grittman stated that a court, in determining why a City can regulate, is looking for a basis for application. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 • Grittman stated that it is a re-statement of the City's authority to zone as a legal responsibility. Gabler requested that "banners" be added to the temporary sign definition. She also noted that searchlights is also missing. Grittman noted that inflatable devices was listed elsewhere in the ordinance. Gabler asked if the definition for "commercial speech" is a required definition. Grittman noted it as an important distinction between commercial and political speech. Gabler also noted that she would like to see the freeway bonus district included in the ordinance. A brief discussion regarding monument signage was held, confirming the differences between free-standing signs, monument signs and pylon signs and the height of monument signs. Schumann noted that as the Commission finishes refining the ordinance standards, staff will add diagrams and tables to aid in clarification, as well. Voight sought clarification on the difference between sandwich boards versus temporary signs. Grittman noted that sandwich boards would be allowed only during hours of business and would be an additional allowance to those for temporary signs. It was clarified that sandwich boards within the CCD require a permit due to their likely location along the boulevard. Chairman Dragsten noted that changes had been made to clarify property for sale or lease signage. The Commissioners agreed that an 8' x 8' sign seemed large enough for visibility, but perhaps allowing additional signs based on front footage would be worthwhile. Gabler inquired whether the non-profits fit under the temporary signage clause. Grittman re-iterated that the City could not regulate speech. For example, although the City could expand the allowance to 60 days with the intent to add the 20 day for non-profit use, the City can't specifically regulate that the 20 days be used for only non-profits. Voight commented that he had advocated temporary signs by building versus tenant. He inquired if instead the sandwich board provision was added to meet that need. Grittman concurred, noting that for multi-tenant buildings allowing temporary signs per tenant could result in a "permanent temporary signage". The draft ordinance also gives an incentive by allowing a "free" message board if the property does not utilize temporary signage. Dragsten noted that a provision to allow temporary signs on public property would help serve the non-profit use. The City has the discretion to set policy for this purpose. The Commissioners discussed the time allotments for temporary signage. Grittman responded that an allowance for new businesses would be added to the ordinance. Voight Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 • inquired if 40 days was still an appropriate amount. The Commissioners agreed that was a reasonable amount of time. Voight indicated that the area calculation would be a good location for an illustration. Dragsten inquired about the landscaping requirements for free standing signage. Grittman clarified that directional signage and informational signage would not need landscaping plans. Voight inquired about regulations relating to window signage in terms of what is included in the current ordinance. Voight also asked if this is another area where the CCD maybe different. Grittman stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to avoid businesses using all of their windows as signs instead of windows. Voight asked if we calculate window signs based on the same area formula applied to other signage. Grittman stated that in his experience, this clause doesn't get enforced a great deal, it is more a reason approach. He noted that this is a relatively common ordinance statement. Dragsten suggested that perhaps examples should be provided for this type of use. Gabler asked if the CCD would have its own guidelines or these ordinances would be applied across the board. She noted that if the provisions specific to the CCD conflict with this ordinance, there should be some kind of reconciliation between the two. Grittman stated that he would note that comment to staff. Gabler inquired if someone who removes a sign needs a permit to put back the same sign. Grittman stated that all signs have to be consistent with the sign plan. Grittman stated that the exception is for maintenance. A sign permit maybe required, but not required to become conforming if currently non-conforming. Gabler asked that the State non- conforming rules clause be addressed. Grittman stated that could be added - it would apply to all signage. Grittman noted that with continued revisions and illustrations, this would become clearer. Voight commented on time and temperature signs, whether they are necessary. Grittman noted that this is included because of some provisions of State law, which have their own class of rights. The Commission then discussed dynamic displays at some length. Gabler inquired if buffer zones would be required for these types of signs. Gabler asked if there is any incentive for commercial businesses not to use dynamic signs. Grittman stated that it is most likely that the signs will not be able to be located facing residential properties. Voight commented that perhaps limiting hours of operation maybe what is needed. Voight pointed out that it was previously noted that scrolling would be allowed. Voight also inquired about the meaning of the two minute change. The message has to remain for two minutes. Voight commented that two minutes maybe excessively long. We want these signs to meet their full potential. Grittman noted that a single sign is not the issue, the problem is when multiple flashing signs appear in a corridor, and also so that a single message appears at one time. The Commissioners agreed on the 2 minutes as a starting point. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 The Commission then discussed billboards and other off-premise signage and re-affirmed that they should be prohibited as non-conforming signage. Voight confirmed that height of signage would be measured from crown of adjacent street. Grittman confirmed that gauge is included within the definitions section. Voight asked if the City was going to stick with the area and height assigned within the Freeway Bonus District at 400 square feet and 50' in height. The Commissioners did note those are rather large and high signs. Grittman did note that those dimensions are only applicable to large shopping centers. Going back to temporary signs, the Commission agreed to allow 50 days of temporary signage in PS Districts. Grittman explained that this will be revised and brought back to the Commission. 7. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.