Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-06-2007• • 0 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION March 6th92007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff: 1. Call to order. Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, Barry Voight, Charlotte Gabler Lloyd Hilgart Brian Stumpf Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER, DECLARING A QUORUM AND NOTING THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER HILGART. 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of February 6d', 2007 Commissioner Voight requested that the minutes be amended to reflect the correct spelling of his last name. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6', 2007 AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. Art Doran, 6040 Bakken Street, asked to address the Commission regarding the American Legion. Chairman Dragsten noted that item would be discussed during the public hearing for item number 7 on the agenda. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for an inline retail center at Union Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. • Planner Holien presented the staff report, describing the site specifics for the proposed retail complex. Holien indicated that applicant, Ryan Companies, has proposed five retail sites, connected to the existing Home Depot. The retail sites would gain access from Highland Way. The site shares parking with Home Depot, for which there is an existing cross parking permit. There are approximately 50 excess parking stalls with the cross parking arrangement. Holien reported that a majority of required landscaping for this project had been constructed with the Home Depot project. There is landscaping in place in parking islands and along the County Road 75 side. To meet requirements, the applicants are proposing additional landscaping as shown in the site plans. Holien indicated that the applicant meets signage requirements. She noted that the photometric lighting plan shows high candlefoot readings along Highland Way, which the applicants have made an effort to screen with landscaping. Holien illustrated the building elevations, explaining that the proposed appearance is architecturally consistent with other buildings on the site, and meets code requirements. Overall, Holien stated that the project is consistent with the existing PUD and the B-4 district. She reported that planning staff did not receive the engineer's report in time for the Commission review; it will be provided prior to the City Council meeting. Gabler asked if the buildings are already leased out. Holien replied that she believes a portion of them are. Dragsten noted that the elevations seem to indicate that PetSmart and Office Max have leased space. Voight asked if they would be sharing the pylon sign. Holien replied that is not known at this time, but that this project and any tenants are required to follow the approved sign system for the PUD. Spartz asked if the 4600 square foot area would have two users. Holien stated that she believed that to be accurate based on the plans. Ultimately, that will be the applicant's decision in leasing. Dragsten asked if the tenants were to put signage on both sides, would they still comply. Holien answered that they would be in compliance. Dragsten referred to the engineering comments from WSB listed in the reports. Dragsten asked if WSB's comments were always contained in reports. Holien stated that they are included if they are available. Dragsten asked about a detailed lighting review. Holien stated that the photometrics would be reviewed at building permit. Voight asked about what type of trees would be included parking islands. Holien replied that the planting schedule doesn't refer to existing landscaping, but they do show autumn blaze maple and crabapples. Voight asked if these qualify as overstory trees. Holien stated that the maples count, the crabapples do not. The combination of landscaping on site and in parking areas allows them to meet the minimum requirement. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. 2 Steve Broyer, representing Ryan Companies, stated that the lighting plan as presented is the original PUD lighting plan. Since that time, Ryan has worked with the City to address the lighting fixtures. The standards shown along Highland Way have now been switched to the City's circuiting plan. Dragsten referred to Exhibit Z. Broyer stated that they are prepared to address those items. Dragsten commented that staggering the buildings and adding cosmetic elements to the facades does help break up the building appearance. Spartz asked about a construction timeframe. Broyer stated that upon approval by Council, they will begin construction plans immediately. Stumpf asked to discuss circulation. He referenced the opposing accesses coming off of Highland Way, noting that the access points don't line up across Highland. Grittman stated that the reason those access points don't align is that they are for service vehicles only. In working with Ryan, staff wanted to ensure that only truck traffic exits that way. The City engineers did not want public traffic crossing there. Broyer further confirmed that the Target access is a right in - right out condition only. Hearing no other comments, Commission Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. All wall pack lighting shall be full cutoff lighting to reduce glare. 2. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in this report and detailed in the memo from WSB, dated 2/27/07 and any additional recommendations from the City Engineer regarding grading, drainage and utilities. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi -tenant shopping center, Final Plat Approval and Conditional Use Permit ap_ proval for a drive through lane at Union Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. Planner Grittman provided the staff report, describing the discussion at the previous Commission meeting, in which the proposed item was tabled. Grittman referred to the changes in the plans, discussing the redesign of the drive through. The re -design closes an access, allowing traffic to circulate around a parking bay and limiting access to the rear of the site. Grittman stated that a few parking spaces were lost, but the overall design is better. He also noted that the project is actually in excess for parking due to is shared parking over the entire PUD. 3 Grittman illustrated the revised elevations. He indicated that the added awnings and wall treatments break up the wall planes, which may address the Commission's concerns. Staff believes that they have met the requirements as related to building appearance. The listed condition in Exhibit Z ensures that the applicant will meet the comments of the engineers. Stumpf asked if clients would order and pick up at the same window. Grittman illustrated the order and pick up locations. Dragsten asked about the area shown in previous plans where the parking lot encroached into the easement. Grittman stated that it no longer encroaches into that easement. Grittman also noted that a recent ordinance amendment doesn't allow parking on drainage and utility easements. In areas that the City has utilities running through the middle of sites, the City obtains agreements that property owners are responsible for maintaining and possibly reconstructing parking areas. Dragsten stated that the report states that the back of curb is on the easement. Grittman confirmed that to be accurate and noted that the City felt that it could work around the curb without having to remove it. Dragsten asked if they had adequate stacking in the drive through lane. Grittman stated that it has room for 7 vehicles, which is more than adequate. Dragsten asked if businesses would have to come back to the Commission for the proposed monument sign. Holien stated there are monument signs that were approved originally. Schumann explained that each sign package proposed would also be reviewed for comparison to the approved PUD with a submitted building permit package. Steve Broyer, representing Ryan Companies, again addressed the Commission. Broyer stated that internally, they were happy with the revisions. Broyer noted that the lighting plan had changed, as they went with 30' poles over 38' poles. Dragsten and Voight agreed that the elevations had improved. Dragsten asked if Ryan is familiar with conditions. Broyer stated that they are familiar with the conditions and will address them as required MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in this report and detailed in the memo from WSB dated 1/23/07 and the memo from City Engineer Bruce Westby, dated 1 /24/07. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT • THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND THAT THE USE STATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zonine Ordinance Section 2-2 (PJ) defining public signs and an amendment to Section 3-9 regulating Sims to address off -site, Quasi -public signs. Apvlicant: Citv of Monticello Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, discussing the American Legion's request. Grittman stated that the report addresses the current definition of a public sign. What is proposed is to amend the definition, expanding it to include civic groups. The amendment proposed would allow the Council to designate those groups by resolution. Grittman noted that the other item for consideration is to amend the sign ordinance's limitation on where public signs can be placed. Currently, the zoning ordinance restricts public signs to a few of the zoning districts. Grittman stated that this isn't consistent with where signs currently exist, as public safety signs are in all zoning districts. Regardless of the other issues, staff would recommend amending the ordinance to address the location of such signage. Grittman explained that the third amendment item for consideration clarifies the sizes, design and number of public signs for non -governmental organization. This amendment provides consistency and helps to avoid proliferation of such signs. Gabler stated that such signs could be helpful and show that the City supports those groups. Spartz asked of there would be any other approvals needed. Grittman stated that first the organization would need to be designated, and then need a license to be reviewed by the City to make certain it doesn't interfere with public safety. Voight clarified that the Council will make the decision as to whether a group would fit this criteria. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten confirmed that one of the amendments just eliminates the zoning district problem. Grittman stated that item would be recommended regardless. Dragsten asked if right now the American Legion fits the description of non-commercial. Grittman stated that as a staff we don't believe that they meet a non-commercial designation. The way the ordinance is written is almost exclusively governmental. Stumpf asked what other civic groups could qualify under the amendment. Grittman stated that obviously the VFW, possibly the Rotary, Lions, etc. He noted that many don't have facilities, which may be self-limiting in terms of signage. Stumpf asked if the Commission would make a recommendation for the maximum number to the Council. Grittman replied that the Planning Commission has an • amendment before them allowing 1 sign; they have the option to change that number. Stumpf asked if it could be posted with an existing sign, rather than adding a new sign. Grittman stated that the Commission could consider that as a restriction. Voight referred to information regarding about what other communities have done. Voight asked if there are communities that make these distinctions for civic groups. Grittman stated that while he couldn't cite specific communities, he has seen signs of this nature. Govenmental public signage is more common. Dragsten asked if the Commission has to determine whether civic groups are non- commercial. Grittman responded the ordinance amendment opens up that discussion. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Art Doran, 6040 Bakken Street, spoke to the Commission as Commander of the American Legion. Doran stated that there are many people that come through town, who would like to stop, but do not know where the American Legion is. The Legion has requested a sign for many years. Doran stated that the American Legion is a public, civic organization that donates a lot of funding to the community. He explained that if the Legion does not generate funds, then they do not have the ability to give back to the community. Doran referred to the Commission's question about other cities that have signs. He cited other circumstances where they are present. Doran summarized that the Legion would appreciate the Commission's consideration of this matter. Dragsten asked if the Legion had done any other type of advertising or considered changing their sign. Doran stated that they have been doing advertising in the local paper. Doran stated that by keeping their sign in its location, the problem will still be the same, as people can't see it from County 75. Spartz recognized the uniqueness of their facility. He asked where the Legion would put the sign if allowed. Doran replied that they would probably seek to have it at the corner of County 75 and Elm. Voight asked Doran if the majority of people who frequent their facility are participating in Legion activities or are there for the bar. Doran stated that it is both. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten stated that he believes that the Legion does compete with other businesses within the community and the sign would give them an unfair advantage. Dragsten suggested that perhaps they could utilize other alternatives. Voight agreed and stated that there are already way too many signs in the community and that he doesn't think the City needs more signs. 31 Stumpf stated that he considers their location unique. Stumpf noted the VFW is also tucked off the freeway. Dragsten concurred regarding location, but stated that he just isn't sure these organizations fit the ordinance definition. Spartz stated that the location is unique, but that the amendment would allow Council the discretion to decide whether the organization meets the civic definition. Dragsten stated that he doesn't disagree, just opens the door to other civic organizations. Grittman noted that the motions regarding the first two proposed amendments go together in relationship to the Legion request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PERMIT OFF -SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE 03/06/07 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PERMIT OFF -SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS IDENTIFIED IN • EXHIBIT B OF THE 03/06/07 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3-9 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC SIGNS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Public Hearting — Consideration of a request to establish an overlav district applied to Properties along River Street, and an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 3-3 (F) regulating front yard setback averaging. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC) Prior to the staff report on the item, Chairman Dragsten asked for clarification on what portion of River Street the ordinance covered. Grittman responded that the ordinance would deal primarily with the river side of the street. 7 Grittman provided background for the Commission, referring to the current ordinance which calculates setbacks based on an averaging formula. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission considered whether to eliminate the clause, establishing a straight 30' setback, or to establish an overlay district that would apply to a certain portion of River Street, creating a 50' setback. The Planning Commission recommended against that amendment, recommending to eliminate front yard setback averaging, and creating a 30' front yard setback. Grittman reported that recommendation had gone forward to the City Council. However, the City Council was concerned that property owners may not have understood the impact the overlay could have. So the item was re -noticed with emphasis on the overlay. Grittman explained that the Commission has a second opportunity to review the item and to allow the property owners a second chance at public hearing. Stumpf asked from what point to what point would the area on River Street include. Grittman stated that the discussion is basically between East Bridge to Ellison. Stumpf noted that there could be properties on the west side that are impacted. Grittman stated that the averaging applies in every district, but based on where houses are typically sited, the averaging clause is really only applicable for River Street. Dragsten stated that at the December meeting, when making the motion to recommend denial of the overlay district, the Commission's intent was to not create the separate district, allowing instead the River Street area to blend with the rest of the City in terms of setback. Grittman stated that he interpreted the direction of Council not as disagreement, but to allow for more discussion. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Chief Building Official Anderson noted for the record a letter received by the Planning Commission from John Sandberg and Phyllis Johnson. Chairman Dragsten read the letter, which encouraged the Commission to recommend for the 30' setback, allowing full use of property. Dragsten asked if Anderson had spoken with Sandberg. Anderson confirmed that he had, and that Sandberg would just like the 30' to be a standard city- wide. Sandberg would like to build an addition and wouldn't be able to meet the averaged setback. A resident at 13 Linn Street addressed the Commission, seeking confirmation that the overlay would apply to the north side of River Street only. He inquired what would happen to the south side. Grittman stated that it would just be a standard 30' setback. Adrian Boisclair, resident along East River Street, explained to the Commission that his lot is not very deep and inquired how the ordinance and any potential amendment would affect his property. Grittman stated that the standard setback is 30' from property line. Anderson stated that Boisclair lives at the corner of Washington and River, on the north 40 side. Dragsten clarified this ordinance would not effect him. 0 0 Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. g p g Voight stated that he believes that City should do away with averaging altogether. Voight commented that he doesn't think government or neighboring properties should regulate setbacks any more than necessary. Voight recognized that River Street is unique, so perhaps they should look at the overlay with the 50' setback. Stumpf stated that it isn't the Council's intent to dictate where someone can put their house, it would be to protect the neighbor. Stumpf stated that without averaging, it was to protect uniformity. Dragsten stated that he is in favor of setbacks being within the proximity of neighboring properties. Gabler confirmed that the ordinance would only be creating one overlay district in one area. Dragsten stated that averaging is in place now. Grittman stated that if you are going to have averaging, you need to define what you are averaging. He explained that the overlay district proposed establishes a straight 50' setback for the north side of River Street. Spartz asked if the ordinance currently requires averaging the whole block, or just neighbors. Grittman answered that the ordinance is currently based on averaging just the dotwo adj acent structures. Spartz stated that it may be simpler to just apply the overlay. Voight noted that in December the Commission had recommended eliminating the averaging altogether. Grittman reiterated his concern with the averaging clause. There are enforcement issues by requiring different property owners to comply with different setbacks within the same district. As a result, you have a differential impact on property owners. The City's ability to regulate through zoning is supposed to be applied equally throughout a district. Dragsten inquired if by creating an overlay district with averaging the Commission would address this issue. Grittman stated that it would be better than city-wide averaging, but would still have some of the same issues. Dragsten stated that he would prefer to have the overlay district and have some sort of language for averaging that would allow some movement for placement. Grittman clarified that in that case, it would need to regulate both minimum and maximum setbacks. Anderson illustrated some River Street lot examples for the Commission's reference. Chairman Dragsten referred to the options. Gabler asked if we could take each scenario and apply it to some circumstances. The Commissioners requested an inventory that would allow for comparison of the different scenarios. 6 • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLER TO INVENTORY THE NORTH SIDE OF RIVER STREET FROM OTTER CREEK TO THE HOSPITAL IN RELATIONSIP TO THE SETBACK SCENARIOS PRESENTED AND TO AND TABLE ACTION ON THE RIVER STREET SETBACK AND OVERLAY ITEM UNTIL THE INVENTORY CAN BE REVIEWED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Holien asked if they only wanted setback information, or if they would also like to have the number of non conforming lots created by each situation. The Commission requested both pieces of information. 9. Consideration of the creation of an Interim Amendment to Section 9-1 of the Ciry Code rep-ulatin2 traffic, allowing the Citv to P-rant permission to the Chamber of Commerce to, plan a sign within the Citv right-of-way for a temporary period of time. Planner Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that the Monticello Chamber of Commerce has approached the City on behalf of its members, seeking to create a test of potential off -site advertising messages. The sign proposed is a temporary sandwich board style sign at corner of Hwy. 25 and Broadway. Grittman reported that the Chamber would be responsible for regulating and monitoring the activity on the sign and at the time the ordinance expires, to come back with some further request as related to downtown businesses. Grittman explained that the Chamber is eventually envisioning something more permanent. Staff has written a draft of an ordinance amendment which would allow for that sign to be located on City property for 6 months, at which time the sign would have tt be removes and parties would have to determine if sign was useful. Staff s concerns relate to the amount of traffic and information at that intersection. Grittman referred to the staff report, stating that it outlines a series of conditions for approval. He stated that staff doesn't have a specific recommendation, but does have concerns about setting precedent regarding signage and safety concerns. Stumpf asked if sandwich boards are already allowed. Grittman stated that they are allowed on site, but this would be an off -site sign. Stumpf stated that it is a duplication of current ordinance and allows more signage and clutter. Stumpf commented that people on Highway 25 are not interested in a sandwich board just because they are driving through town. Stumpf stated that he is for helping local business, but is not sure this is the answer. Spartz inquired who would determine if the sign actually directed customers to their bueiness. Grittman noted that measurement is the difficulty. Gabler asked if the Chamber would be collecting funds for this. Grittman stated that it was his understanding that the Chamber would create the sign, but that the business would prepare and pay for the insert. However, placement would be rent free. 10 Voight asked if at the end of the 6 months, someone has to come back with a report. Grittman stated that this is written to allow management within ROW or on its own property. City has control over where and when these would be located. Dragsten stated his opinion that a 6-month trial would be acceptable, although we don't want to create more signage. Voight stated that he believes this request is similar to the Legion agenda item, which just creates more signage. MOTION BY COMMISSION DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9-1 OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY SANDWICH BOARD SIGN FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, AS PREPARED BELOW. A. The subject sign shall be located on City property at the southwest corner of the intersection, adjacent to the Chamber of Commerce site. B. The subject sign shall be a sandwich board sign. C. The subject sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. D. The face area of the sign shall not exceed seven (7) square feet on either side. E. No sign shall be located within ten (10) feet of afire hydrant. F. No sign shall be placed within the public right of way. G. The Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for all scheduling of tenants wishing to advertise a message on the sign. H. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD zoning district, and shall not be composed of "fluorescent" colors. I. The Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for reviewing the design of each faceplate to be placed on the sign. J. The sign must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. Maintenance of the sign shall be the responsibility of the Chamber of Commerce. K. The sign shall be located on ground level. L. The sign shall not obstruct the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detract from the visibility of any official traffic control device. M. The placement of the sign shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. The Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for sign placement. N. The sign shall not occupy any public sidewalk. O. The sign shall not have electrical connections, nor include any lighted or moving component. 11 ! P. This agreement shall expire on September 30, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, VOIGHT IN DISSENT. Gabler suggested that the Legion work with the Chamber to get their name on the sandwich board sign 10. Adi ourn MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. { Angel chi nn, Recorder • 12