Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-05-1999Planning Commission Minutes- 10/05/99 MINUTES REGULARREGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5, 1999 Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. and Roy Popilck Absent: Clint Ilerbst Staff Present: JcfTO'Neill. Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer I. Call to order. Chair Fric called the meeting to order. 2. Armroval of minutes of the reeular mcetine held Scntcmbcr 7. 1999. ROD DRAGSTF-N MOVED TO APPROVE. THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7,1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD CARL.SON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 27.1999 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD f DRAGSTF.N SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 5C 3. Consideration of nddine items to the wenda. Robbie Smith asked to clarify an issue regarding Resurrection Lutheran Church in regard to utilizing the former office space for classrooms on Sundays only. This item was placed as Item 12 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments - None 5. Public Ilcnrine -- Consideration of a reouest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow three or more business liens on a commercial buildine at 106 & 106 % West Broadway. nnmlicane Grceory W. Ihmn. DDS. Fred Patch provided the staff report noting that the owners of the building located at 106 & 106 %, West Broadway arc rcqucsting that a conditional use permit be issued to allow the erection of a 4'x 6' internally illuminated business identification wall sign on the cast wall at the mar (south end) of the building. The business signs are needed to advertise three separate businesses from the same building. The sign plan for the building has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the required conditions for the conditional use permit. A copy of the sign drawing was C provided to each member. Greg Dunn. DDS was unable to attend the meeting. A condition would be that no signs will be displayed on the north wall except for a directional sign. Planning Commission Minutes . 10103/99 Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Clarence McCarty of CENTCOM and the owner of this building, stated he is the former owner of the Sunrise Dental office and it is his understanding that Dr. Dunn will lake the Sunrise sign down. He also noted that the wiring is already there from the previous sign. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the members as to why this particular sign was not brought to DAT for review. Fred Patch stated he was given the authority by DAT to review signs and make a decision without DAT's review. Fred did, however, discuss this particular sign with Pam Campbell. Chairperson of DAT and it was agreed that this did not have to come before the DAT. They also discussed that this proposed sign was to be internally illuminated rather than externally as in the Downtown Revitalization Plan. but that this sign was allowable by code and therefore there was no point in having DAT review it. Nevertheless, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they desired DAT review of signs that are allowable only by conditional use permit. The members also discussed regulations in regard to glare as well as color of the sign. Fred stated that there arc regulations in place as to glare. Some of the members stated their concern with internal lighting being more obtrusive and that it should meet the same requirements as on Droadway. It was stated that this sign being on Ilighway 25 would probably not affLct Broadway and that the Chamber sign is internally illuminated as well. A MOTION WAS MADE. BV ROBBV SMITH TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE. OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF THIS d' \ 6' SIGN AT 106 AND 106 Y, WEST BROADWAY, AS REQUESTED BV THE APPLICANT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. All signs for tenants shall be consistent in design, materia4 shape, and method of illumination; and, 2. Prior to making any alteration of sign% sign location, sign size, or number of signs, the building owner shall submit an application and revised sign plan to the City, and receive an amendment to this conditional use permit. 3. There shall be no other sign other than directional and address placed on the South wall. i. Prior to installation, the sign will be approved by City Building OlDcial. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THEMOTION. ROY POPILEK OPPOSED. Motion carried 4 to I. C, 6. Public [fearing for consideration ofa reaucst fgLa Conditional Use Permit within the U Zonina District to allow Outdoor Stomee of Eauipmcnt and Materials. Applicant: -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 10,05/99 ainline Distribution Pronerties Stcvc Grittman provided the staff report stating the applicant. has requested a Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of the property for accessory• outdoor storage. The property is currently developed with an existing building and a paved and curbed parking/driveway area. The proposed outdoor storage will be located on a Class 5 gravel pad to the cast of the building. The applicant proposed to fence in the pad with a chain link fence. using slats in the fence to screen the storage area. The specific conditions of the Zoning District relating to outdoor storage appear to be met. including screening and setbacks. The site would be subject to buffervard requirements. however. The applicant shows an existing tree line consisting of I I evergreen and 10 deciduous imes. a total of 255 plant units. Therefore. the existing bufferyard is in compliance with the ordinance. Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Grocbncr. Grocbncr R Associates. was present and gave a brief discussion on their request. Mr. Grocbner noted that they are not proposing to use a large amount of storage and they have no special storage requirements. Ile also stated they would have only one trailer which will be used to handle these banded tubes being stored. the only access to this area is their driveway and it is behind their building. Mr. GrocbnLr stated that a good tree line has been established and the elementary school has planted three rotes of pine trees as well. Chair Fric closed the public hearing. The members acre concerned with security lighting possibly shining into the residential area which is approximately 1/3 mile south of their building. Mr. Grocbner stated that currently there is one outdoor security light on the building which shines out into an agricultural field and it has been there since the building was built in approximately 1994 and they have had no complaints to date. Ile also docs not anticipate the need to add more security lighting as he docs not foresee this storage area as a high risk area. Ile also noted the height of the fence would be 7 feet and will have a rolling gate which will he open during business hours and pulled closed and locked a(ier hours. A MOTION WAS MADE B%' ROV POPILF.K TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR MAINLINE DISTRIBUTION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CUP COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE STANDARDS FOR OUTDOOR .STORAGE IN THE I -I, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AS IDENTIFIED IN CHAPTER 15B4OFTIIF ZONING ORDINANCE.. ROD DRAGSTF.N SECONDEII TIIF: MIITION. Motion carried. 7. Consideration ofan amendment to the %onine Ordinance to allow fora deferral of C parkins IM ravine andlor curb reuuiremcnts in the Business Districts, Annlicant: Citv of Monticello. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 10:05/99 Steve Grittman provided the staff report. Following requests which were heard at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to investigate the possibility of establishing a process for deferring paving and/or curbing requirements for certain commercial uses. The current zoning regulations allow for such a deferral for industrial uses in the industrial districts. A separate text amendment would be necessary to accommodate these requests in commercially zoned areas. If such a process is to be proposed, it is recommended that a Conditional Use Permit be used. This is the process used for industrial districts, and the same general process would be appropriate to avoid confusion. Ilowever, there are different standards which would be applicable to commercial uses. Previous commercial applications were for deferral to allow a lesser immediate installation cost where an existing (usually non -conforming) business was remodeling and redeveloping over time. This was the case with both Little Mountain Feed and Ilawk's Bar. For these uses. the issue is whether a limited improvement to an existing property. even without proper paving or curbing. is preferable to no improvement at all. In some cases, there may be a concern that adding the cost of paving or curbing as a condition to the approval of an expansion may stop any improvement to the site. One option. therefore. would be to allow the paving/curbing deferral for a limited time. and only for thou businesses which are existing. and where the expansion or remodeling is correcting some other significant deficiency with respect to the zoning ordinance. Any such deferral should also require a recommendation by the City Engineer that traffic and drainage may be handled effectively without the deferred improvements. The primary concern with this issue is one of enforcement. Since it is unlikely that the City would be able to require a financial security (on the assumption that the request is based in economics), the primary enforcement measure is revoking the Conditional Use Permit, and perhaps. suing for compliance with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. This seems to be an unlikely scenario. As such. the draft ordinance includes a provision that the Conditional Use Permit would lapse if not complied with in a timely manner. and the property would be considered a non -conforming use until it were brought into full compliance with all portions of the Zoning Ordinance. It is not clear that this would inspire compliance. however. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. No one was present. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Concerns of the members were spLriftcally of enforcement. Some suggestions were to make a determination based on percentage of improvements being made to existing property and the burden of the Building Official to determine this. A suggestion was to C prepare a deferral clause. but again it was noted that enforcement would be an issue as there is no real threat to a business if they do not abide by the clause. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - MOM The Monticello Country Club %vas also discussed as to whether or not it is significant for them to install curb and gutter other than aesthetics and it was stated it is important for traffic control as well as protection and longevity of the pavement. Typically drainage is an issue. although not in the case of the golf course. The members discussed the possibility ofdeferring these requirements in lieu of a correction of some other kind. Again. the problem would be enforcement at a later date. The members would like to be able to look at each case individually but do recognize that this would cause inconsistencies. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC IIFARING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE AMFNDMF.NT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RE -NOTIFICATION TO INCLUDE. ALL DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. Consideration ofannroval of Preliminary Plat of"Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition'. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park Inc._ Pfeffer Co. Inc. Jcff O'Ncill presented the staff report stating the Planning Commission is requested to review the preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition. This plat is located directly north of the new high school property in the WA zoning district. The plat consists of 6.38 acres. This plat is being established in conjunction with a development of the Twin City Die Castings facility which will be developing a facility that produces machine pans from magnesium. The first phase of the facility will contain 36.000 sq. ft. of usable space. The property area is intended to house a future expansion which all together will result in an 80.000 sq. ft. facility. The 6 acre plat is tucked into the far southeasterly comer of the property owned by Monticello Industrial Park Inc. The private service drive providing Chelsea Rd access to the high school wraps around the southeast comer of the site. Please note that according to the buffer yard ordinance. the site plan will need to include construction of a buffer yard to the south and cast. The site is serviced by Chelsea Road on the north. Water and sewer service is available. therefore no public improvements are necessary. No outside storage is planned. Chair Fric opened the public hearing. There was no one present. Chair Fric closed the public hearing. It uus clarified that the property owner on the other side of this parcel is the Monticello Schools (I ligh School) and that the roadway is a prviate drive and entirely on school property. Buffering is a requirement of the developer of the facility. Twin City Dic Castings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE MONTICELLO C COMMERCE CENTER FOURTH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PLAT AT THIS LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE .5. Planning Commission Minutes - 10105/99 C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING. ORDINANCE.. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. Consideration to annrove a resolution findinu that the modified Redevelonmcm Plan for Central Monticello Redevelonment Proiect No. 1 and the'fIF Plan for TIF District No. I- 26 confirm to the eencral nlans for the devclonmcm and redevelonmcm of the Cite, The Planning Commission is asked to approve the enclosed resolution finding that the proposed project is consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The resolution is a part of the'1'I F approval process. Job and ttagc-level goals for this project are 89 jobs at an hourly average %%-age of $17.06 plus average hourly benef its of $5.47. The proposed project meets the Business Subsidy Criteria of the I IRA. EDA. City and State. The contractor for the project is Olson General Contractors, Inc., Minneapolis. MN. Building and site plans to be submitted with the permit application sometime the first or second week in October. Groundbreaking is initially intended for sometime between November I and 15. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE- TO APPROVE. THE RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT 1-26 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPM ENT OF THE CITY. RODNEY DRAGSTEN SECONDEDTNE MOTION. Motion carried. 10. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello %oninu Ordinance relatint; to siens to allow electronic mcssaec board siens in business districts, Annlicam: Citv of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the staff report reminding the members that when Monticello Ford processed its expansion earlier this year. a request was made for an electronic message board sign. which ttas approved through a variance. At that time. stalfand the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of writing such signs into the ordinance. including some standards which would regulate their display. The intent of any regulations of these signs would be to ensure that they do not become a nuisance or traffic hazard. There area number of trays which these signs might be regulated. Duc to the improving technology. the impassion of motion and color are not uncommon. In addition. when fully lit. such signs can he extraordinarily bright. Flashing of these signs can he distracting, even during the day, or in areas which are already highly lit at night. however, monitoring signs under a high level of regulation is problematic for the City. As a result. the components of regulation need to balance enforcement with the potential Cfor nuisance and public safety concerns. Steve provided a draft ordinance which would permit signs in the B-3 and B4 .6. Planning Commission Minutcs - 10105/99 commercial districts only. on the theory that they do not belong in areas near residential neighborhoods (as would be the case in the B -I. B-2, or P%M districts), nor would they appear to meet the intent of the Design Guidelines for the CCD. Steve asked the Planning Commission to discuss whether the CCD is an appropriate district, as well as the P -S District. It is staffs understanding that the School District may seek such a sign for the new I ligh School. Steve also summarized the elements of regulations: • No flashing (scrolling messages would be allowed) • 'Me sign must be a component of the allowed signage in the district. that is, the electronic message board is not an extra sign - it would be treated as if it were a changeable copy portion of a pylon sign. • The sign must meet all other requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance and Building Code. • I.ED - Non -glare light bulbs are used. There was discussion on the Peterson Ford sign previously approved and it was noted that in that case the City gave them an additional sign as well as limited the size of the sign. 11 was also noted by Jeff O'Neill that the code was previously changed to allow institutional signs, i.e. the school. StafTwas asked to check• what was approved previously. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO TABLE. ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. Discussion of the Comnrehensive Plan Imnlemeniation Stens established in 1996. Jeff O'Neill provided a brief update on the preliminary comprehensive plan that was implemented in August of 1996, asking the members to review and add any new items. Sonic areas of concerns noted by the members were of blighted areas and Jeff stated it may be a good idea to put together another meeting to address this issue. There also seemed to be a communication issue regarding the process that takes place once the Planning Commission reviews an item and it is sent to City Council and back to staff. It was noted that there have been instances of communication issues in the past• specifically in the case of the Danner Trucking issue. Code enforcement w•as another concern. Fred Patch asked the members to consider Brad [.arson's sign application which had been tabled previously and act on it. ROBBIE SMIT11 MOTIONED TO BRING TIIF VARIANCE REQUEST BV BRAD LARSON FOR A PROJECTING SIGN BACK ON THE AGENDA IN THE FORM OFA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. ROY POPILFK MOTIONED TO DENY THE RFQUFST FOR A SIGN PLvmingCommissionMinutes- 10105199 VARIANCE. DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY'S ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP. ROD DRAGSTF.N SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 12. Clarification of an issue rceardine the Resurrection Lutheran Church utilizing the former office space for classrooms on Sundays onlv. Robbie Smith, acting as a representative of the Resurrection Lutheran Church, approached the Planning Commission regarding the request of the church to utilize this space for needed classrooms on Sundays. Fred Patch stated that this was against the State Building Code as it is not a conforming use. 13. Ad0ourn ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE. MEETING AT 9:50 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. I.oIGaemer4Mdirlg Secrctary C; -9-