Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-05-2006• • is Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: Staff Present: 1. Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 5th, 2006 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak, and Steve Grittman — NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum, noting that Commissioner Schibonski had resigned. 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetinjas of July 18th, August 1 St and August 14th, 2006. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 18th, AUGUST 1st, AND AUGUST 14th. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of addinja items to the agenda. Commissioner Suchy inquired about the continued hearing for the R-1 A and R-2A amendment. Schumann indicated that it would be continued to the second meeting of the Commission in September. 4. Citizen comments. Barry Voight, 3802 Heyward Court South, addressed the Commission. Voight indicated that he was present to address item number 8, but he did have general concerns about lighting used in and around the new developments within the city. Voight mentioned that the intensity of the lights does create concern about light pollution and glare in the area. Voight stated that living next to commercial developments, the lighting can be obtrusive. Dragsten asked if light was coming from Jefferson Commons, or elsewhere. Voight responded that the light came both from that area, citing Arby's spotlights, as well as Wal-Mart. He noted that even the streetlights seem to be fairly bright. Chairman Dragsten explained that the City does have lighting standards in the ordinances. He stated that lights should be shining down, even within commercial development Grittman stated that the staff person that deals with streetlights in the public right of way would be Public Works Director John Simola. He asked Voight to contact Simola regarding those specific concerns. In private property situations, Grittman confirmed that there are ordinance standards, although cumulatively, the net effect of all lighting in an area may create a glow. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage in an I-2 District. Applicant: AME. Inc. Grittman reviewed the staff report, indicating the proposed facility's location in the City's industrial campus, Otter Creek Industrial Park. The parcel on which the proposed facility would be located is zoned I-2. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for open and outdoor storage of material. The storage area is along the northern boundary of the site, and bins will be used to store gravel material in this area. Grittman stated that the remainder of the site's activities are enclosed between the plant, underground area and garage/warehouse. There will be outdoor storage of vehicles and employee parking. Grittman explained that outdoor storage is allowed in an I-2 by conditional use and that the performance standards of the ordinance relate to screening. Grittman stated that the applicants, as part of their negotiation with the City for acquiring the land, show an extensive amount of landscaping, not just around outdoor storage area, but around entire site. A large concrete block wall will surround the site at approximately 8 feet in height. Grittman stated that the report summarizes City requirements for development of 1-2 property. Grittman reported that staff believe the applicant has met the requirements and has gone beyond the minimum standards. Staff is recommending approval as proposed. Spartz asked if property adjacent to the site on north edge will be zoned residential. Grittman answered that the remainder of the Otter Creek plat will be I-1A, but the land adjacent to the west is YMCA property. Spartz asked if there is any residential property directly abutting the facility. Grittman stated that residential is planned long range to the south, but there is an intense landscape boundary at the top of the hill. Spartz asked about a lighting and signage plan. Grittman stated that the applicants have been made aware of code requirements, which they will need to follow in building permit requirements. Spartz noted this had been rezoned I-2. Spartz asked if allowing outdoor storage here would set precedent for outdoor storage in other areas of the park. Grittman noted that the I-2 zoning makes this site different. Suchy asked if, in relationship to the 8' wall, there was no other option in terms of berming, or landscaping. Grittman stated that the wall was discussed as a method to beautify the site, and the best alternative for screening the other activities on site. It was felt that the block wall, with a series of columns, with landscaping outside the wall, would have a better affect. Dragsten asked if the building will meet same covenants as the rest of the plat. Grittman stated the building material is EFIS, which is similar to a stucco product. In working with the applicants, the towers seen on a majority of plants will be enclosed. 2 0 Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz commented that the applicants have done a good job of making site improvements. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AVR TO ALLOW FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE I- 2 DISTRICT AND THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL HAVE BEEN MET. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request to amend Chanter 11 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District. Ap_ nlicant: Monticello Planning Commission Grittman presented the staff report, relating that the Commission had previously considered a rezoning request for a property on West Broadway, which had led to a discussion of the B-1 zoning district regulations as a whole. Grittman explained that when the B-1 District originated, it was designed to accommodate corner groceries and small neighborhood services. Over the past 30 years, those uses have phased out. The amendment proposed creates something more consistent with what is seen in transitional commercial areas and residential area. The idea in this amendment is to redesign the B-1 to allow the majority of uses as conditional uses. Grittman stated that the amendment would give the City the opportunity to review each case in terms of surrounding uses. If the zoning is considered to be appropriate, then the City can look specifically at uses through a conditional use permit. Dragsten asked if in relationship to CUPs, the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review landscaping, lighting and other site plans. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten asked if the business changes, do applicants need to come back through. Grittman stated that if the use is the same, no. However, if the use changes, yes. Grittman stated that through development contract, could identify some other potential uses that would be acceptable under the same CUP, if the Commission so chose. They would need to be less intense uses. Suchy asked if under applicants can still request a variance under the amended standards. Grittman stated that CUP does not supercede their ability to ask for a variance. Spartz stated that agrees with purpose statement. He questioned what essential services are. Grittman stated that they are installations like electrical cabinets, things that need to be permitted. It does not include such uses as a fire station, which has its own designation. is Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. 3 9 Hearin no further discussion Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. g g p g Dragsten asked if when considering the CUP, can the Commission limit the amount of lighting and signage outside of what is regulated by ordinance. Grittman stated that the Commission can as long as it is related to the needs of the site. Suchy stated that the amendment seems to bring the code up to today and encouraged staff to use development contract for other proposed uses that might be acceptable under the same CUP approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING THE B-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for rezoning from R-2 (Single and Two Familv Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business).for 530 West Broadway. Applicant: David Thielman/Gatewav Music Festivals Grittman presented the staff report and noted that the rezoning request related to the previous item. Grittman stated that the parcel is located just west of a PZM district, within an R-2 district. The applicant has a proposed buyer who would not be able to use the building under the R-2 designation. The building has been used for many years as a commercial facility. If the rezoning is approved, the potential buyer would need to come back for a CUP. Related specifically to this request for rezoning, staff has identified some issues to be aware of. Grittman stated that it appears that the site can be used under the new zoning provisions, as a result of proximity to other commercial uses. The rezoning request meets the intent of the district under the amendment. Staff are recommending approval of rezoning. David Thielman, property owner, made himself available for questions from the Commission or public. Thielman stated that staff had gone through their analysis thoroughly; he sees nothing objectionable in the report. Dragsten noted that if a new user comes in, they will need a conditional use permit. Spartz asked about exhibit Z. Grittman responded that there is no Exhibit Z. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE • REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND rd INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ANY FUTURE TENANT MUST OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRIOR TO OPERATION, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMENDED ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Variance to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance section 3-9(E) regulating the height and area of pvlon sianage in a B-4 (Regional Business) district. Applicant: Mark Parnell/RiverCity Lanes Grittman reviewed the staff report, illustrating the proposed location at Jefferson Commons. The applicants recently completed acquisition of this property with the City. Grittman explained that there are a number of uses within the facility. The applicants are looking for a variance from signage requirements. The proposed signage totals 362 square feet of wall signage and a separate pylon at 168 square feet. The total square footage of the signage is over 500 square feet. Additionally, the applicants would need a variance to the allowable height for the proposed pylon at 28' in height. Grittman indicated that the way the ordinance is set up, any commercial building regardless of size or tenants, is limited to 300 square feet per property. The City has made some exceptions that were allowed by PUD, recognizing that large commercial facilities have unique signage needs. The way the ordinance is written does not allow the same application for the River 0 City Lanes. Grittman referred to conditions for granting hardship. The question for the Commission is can the applicants have reasonable use without this variance and are there special considerations due to the configuration of site. Grittman stated that School Blvd. was designed based on speculative commercial lot depth for retail strip centers. The nature of this use doesn't fit that intended lot configuration. As a result, the building is moved all the way to the back of the lot. Grittman referred to setting of precedent, stating that under these specific conditions, a hardship condition exists. Suchy referred to the portion of the staff report which indicates that the ordinance may be outdated, as it doesn't address these large buildings on large lots. Suchy asked if this type of provision is something you would see in other communities. Grittman stated that it is very difficult to compare from city to city, they are very different. He stated that he thought that perhaps the City had amended ordinance to allow big box retailers more signage. However, it isn't likely to see this type of building outside of big box development very often. As such, the variance may be appropriate. Spartz asked where they will be locating the signs. He noted that the wall signage did not seem out of scale on the walls. Schumann clarified the location of directional and pylon signs. Hilgart asked for approximate acreage of site. O'Neill stated it is approximately 7 — 7.5 acres. Hilgart noted that it is a large site and that on a parcel of such size there could be multiple 5 businesses with multiple signs. Dragsten asked if they are going to split eastern portion and S hold it for a future user. Grittman stated that is their intent. It is not part of this development. Dragsten stated that the report stated that originally the applicants had wanted to put it off - site. Grittman stated that actually had its own set of issues. The applicant decided that rather than argue for an off site sign, they chose this route, which is more appropriate to this building and site. Dragsten asked how the City had handled the Ford dealership. Grittman stated that the Ford building was a PUD, involving multiple buildings. In that case, it was felt there were a number of business entities, which allowed for more signage. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Barry Voigt, 3802 Heyward Court South, asked if the variance goes through, does the ordinance refer to both square footage and height. Voight asked for current allowable height. O'Neill stated 26'. Voight asked for height of building. Grittman confirmed the building height at 27'. Voight stated that while there is little chance another big box would be located here, another business could make the same argument about visibility difficulty from Deegan and School. Perhaps emphasis shouldn't be size of sign. Voight stated that he would just ask that the Commission consider the precedent set. Tony Binks, 9355 Park Place Drive, stated that his property is right on the corner of this property. He noted that there is going to be some screening and asked what it would consist of. Grittman responded that the City's minimum planting requirement is 2.5 caliper inches for the 8-10 deciduous trees, and also some additional tree planting along that boundary. O'Neill noted that the City would be trying to organize additional planting on the private residential side, as well. Binks asked if screening is only on this property, or if they will be required to screen on the east, as well. Grittman stated that when that area develops, they will be required to screen. Binks commented that he agreed with the comment on lighting. It has been a discussion with his neighbors. Dragsten asked that staff confirm that lighting confirms. O'Neill asked Binks if the lighting is glaring or general. Binks stated more general. Voight asked about lighting on this sign. Grittman stated that it is an internally lit box. Hilgart noted size of property and where it is sitting. Spartz commented on moving the sign away from the neighborhood, but this may be the best location. Suchy stated that she is in favor of a large sign for larger business. Suchy stated that Grittman had addressed her concern regarding the ordinance. Dragsten noted that if we get another, we should consider an amendment. Dragsten stated that he has no problem with area variance. Does think that height is fair. People buy 25 for that exposure. Because you are off a couple of blocks, you shouldn't get a larger sign. Noted it presents many more issues. Asked other Commissioners. Posusta commented on the notation that had been made that business located on Highway 25 C� had paid a premium for that location. He stated that the Commission had recently discussed allowing a sign for a hotel that is not on Highways 25 or 94, but they a need signthat identifies their business. Staff have been trying to find ways to promote businesses downtown. He stated that he thinks it is important to do what we can to help. He stated that he doesn't see how this request is different. Dragsten stated that if height is appropriate, then perhaps we should table for an amendment, as it is precedent setting to start allowing raising sign hieght. Posusta stated that the sign is an integral part of the negotiation on the land trade. Grittman stated that the Commission can split the two variance actions. Grittman stated that they can approve the variance for area and withhold action on the height. That allows them to go ahead and order their wall sign. Posusta noted that the readerboard sign is important. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO WALL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT UNDUE HARDSHIP EXISTS DUE TO THE OUTDATED NATURE OF THE CITY'S CODE AS RELATED TO SIGNAGE FOR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, WHICH PROHIBITS THE APPLICANT FROM OBTAINING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF A SIGN SYSTEM THAT IS TO SCALE WITH BUILDING AND SITE. THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE INDICATED MEET THE 10 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY CODE, AND MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP IS PROVEN AND CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN MET. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Public Hearinja — Consideration of a request to amend Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance reQulatinia the height and area of sijzns in a freewav overlav zone within commercial districts. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the City has recently experienced an increase in the number of Variance requests for signs higher and/or larger than what is allowed by ordinance. There have also been frequent circumstances where applicants have used the flexibility granted by a PUD designation for higher, larger or more signage. Grittman noted the recent variance request submitted by the Best Western. The Planning Commission denied this Variance request, and directed the preparation of an ordinance amendment to link sign size to potential advertising needs. Grittman reviewed the current regulations, under which area and height for freestanding signs are determined based on the speed limit and road classification of the road on which the building is located. Under this ordinance, businesses on collector streets with lower speed limits are not allowed as much signage as neighboring businesses on roads 7 classified as major thoroughfares or freeways. He stated that the ordinance does provide for a bonus to allow "freeway standard signs" up to 200 square feet in area and 32 feet high. Businesses in any commercial or industrial area located within 800 feet of a freeway, but not directly abutting the freeway, are eligible for this bonus. In response to the increasing number of Variance requests has been attributed to businesses trying to take advantage of Interstate-94 exposure, the Planning Commission has recommended altering the freeway bonus district to give more businesses an opportunity for additional signage. Grittman stated that staff had prepared two alternatives for the extension of the district, which were illustrated on a map included in the staff report. Suchy asked if the existing area does extends toward O'Ryans. Grittman stated it goes all the way along City limits. Suchy asked if the commercial area at Cedar and 25 was notched out for a reason on the alternatives. Grittman stated that the boundary was drawn to include only those properties with direct frontage on Chelsea. Dragsten stated that it doesn't seem to show the car wash area. Grittman stated that it would include the north lot on Chelsea. Schumann asked how any amendment approved would affect existing signs or those approved under PUD. Grittman stated that if a sign is approved in a PUD, it has a separate approval it is required to adhere to. The amendment does not affect existing signage. Hilgart asked how the amendment would impact the Best Western. Grittman stated that right now, their sign is proposed at the allowed 22', it was area that was the issue for them. Hilgart stated that signs should be proportionate to the building. Dragsten asked if Hilgart wanted language included to reflect size of buildings in relationship to the sign. Hilgart was concerned about all of the area included in the second alternative, including all those with frontage on both the north and south side of Chelsea. He stated that if someone subdivided, that is a lot of signage. Suchy asked how the Commission can justify adding a small section to overlay. Grittman stated that you the Commission has the discretion in making those decisions. The Commission could decide that anything north of Chelsea is freeway. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies, addressed the Commission as a land owner in Monticello. Pfeffer stated that he would encourage the Commission to view the sign ordinance to drive traffic and maximize the traveling public's knowledge. He stated that Monticello also has a large amount of freeway frontage. As a property owner with land south of Chelsea on the east side of town, he would encourage consider the opportunity for frontage on either side of Chelsea. He noted that Ocello also has property on the west side of Monticello that is south of Chelsea. 0 Dragsten asked if most of the Ocello property to the west of Highway 25 is developed. Pfeffer stated that there are some undeveloped parcels zoned B-3. Hearing no fiuuther discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he has less of a problem extending the bonus area to the south of Chelsea on the east side of Highway 25. However, he noted that a lot of the west side is residential. Suchy agreed. Dragsten stated that he would also like to have the bonus area include the redevelopment area south of Chelsea on Highway 25. Posusta mentioned that the overlay should encompass any businesses within the notch for Marvin, Highway 25 and Cedar. O'Neill asked about the Otter Creek area. Grittman responded that as it is light industrial, probably may not be as justifiable. He noted that the area is intended to be more of an upscale office park, tending toward more low monument signs. Grittman noted that the Commission could also make this overlay applicable to just commercial zoning districts. Dragsten asked how that affects what's happening downtown. Grittman stated that CCD has its own set of regulations, is not our intent to affect that. Dragsten stated that the best alternative may be to table action to get a new map based on the Commissions comments. Grittman stated that what he would do is break yellow into sub districts. Then Commission could discuss each for inclusion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 9 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FREEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE OCTOBER MEETING OF THE COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. O'Neill talked about signs in general, and the on -going effort to get ordinance up to date. Dragsten stated that it seems that changes in development call for another look at the ordinance. O'Neill stated that some parts can be worked on in the interim, some can wait until the update to the comprehensive plan for direction. 10. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. ;7: � Angela churna�in Recorder g . 9