Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-01-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMI88ION Tuesday, February 1, 1994 - 7 p.m. Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 4, 1994. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to Section 3-9 E: 2 (b) ii of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow display of two additional premise identification signs. Applicant, Holiday Stationstores. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request which would allow two curb cuts where street frontage is less than 250 lineal feet. Applicant, Liberty Savings. 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a 12 -ft variance to Section 3-9: C7 of the zoning ordinance, which would allow a sign to be set back 3 ft from the right-of-way. Applicant, Liberty Savings. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to Section 3-9: D2 of the zoning ordinance, which would allow a non -conforming sign to be changed to another nonconforming sign. Applicant, Liberty Savings. 7. Adjournment. S. Vt1.0'_ cot. ✓c, no+ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 4, 1994 - 7 p.m Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, Richard Carlson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 3, 1993. Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Richard Martie. Absent: Richard Carlson. 3. Public Hearine--Consideration of a ureliminary Dist request of phase IV - Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. ADolicant. Value Plus Homes. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Value Plus Homes' request for a preliminary plat of phase IV of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. The following is a review of the preliminary plat along with discussion topics that require special attention by the Planning Commission. Parcel Standards/Easement Requirements. O'Neill indicated that City staff had reviewed the plat for compliance with lot design, roadway width, and easement standards and found that the plat meets the minimum requirements. Additional easement widths will be needed for Lots 15 and 16. Block 2, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, to accommodate storm sewer pipes at these locations. The final location for the storm water easement has not been defined by the City Engineer but might need to be adjusted prior to the final plat. Sanitnfv Sgwes and Water Systems. A description of the utility system providing the development with sanitary sewer and water has not been included with phase fV, as it has already been determined that it is feasible to serve the plat as proposed. Storm Water System. The project shows development of a storm water ponding area along the southern boundary of the property. This facility will serve to maintain storm water for the 4th phase. The existing pond developed in the 3rd phase will be connected to the south pond developed with the 4th phase. Page 1 �.,� Planning Commission Minutes - 1/4/94 Park Develonment. When the 2nd phase of Cardinal Hills was developed, the Parks Commission recommended the City accept the park in the northwest corner of the development (2.7 acres) and a proposed tot lot (.b acres) in the southeast section of the development. The land area of the two park areas amounts to approximately V3 of the standard park dedication area required with this plat. The developers are requesting that they pay cash in lieu of land for the unsatisfied portion of the park dedication requirement. When the final plat of phase III of Cardinal Hills was approved by the City Council, the Council accepted cash in lieu of park land as satisfying the park requirement for phase III; however, Council made no commitments regarding the park requirement associated with the development of phase IV through completion of the project. The developers will be requesting the City to make a final determination as to what the park dedication requirement will be for the balance of the development. The park dedication question was brought back before the Parks Commission for their input at a recent meeting. The Parks Commission continued with their original recommendation to hold the view of the school property along with the two parks provided sufficient space for the area. It was also their view that a strong effort in the future should be made to acquire land south of the south pond for park purposes. This land would be acquired with the development of the adjoining land to the south. The Parks Commission felt this would be a good area for a central park in this location. The Parks Commission recommended to acquire the south pond as an outlot to be connected to the future park area. The public works department was opposed to the City obtaining this south pond area as an outlot. If it was an outlot, the City would be required to maintain that outlot and would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property. If it were not an outlot and the property lines extended into this south pond area, the property owner would be responsible for maintaining this outlot area. If the Planning Commission thinks the public access to the area is a strong possibility, then it should be taken as an outlot. If there is no need for the public to walk or skate in this area, then it should be taken as an easement. Sidewalk/Pathway. It is proposed that the pathway easement be provided between Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, to allow limited pedestrian access to the south pond area. This pathway would be extended through the south pond area across a sand filter, which will act as a bridge. The bridge will then be connected to a future park area if it is developed to the south. Road Svotem. The 4th phase calls for further development of Starling Lane, Mallard Lane, and a portion of Pelican Avenue. Page 2 C) Planning Commission Minutes - 1/4/94 Grading and Drainaee Plan. The grading and drainage plan for the site has already been prepared by the City Engineer. This plan was done in conjunction with an application for an Army Corps of Engineers permit obtained by the applicant in conjunction with the 2nd phase of the development. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no additional information from the public, Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for comments from the Planning Commission members. Much discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was the area of the south pond, whether to accept that as an outlot or to extend the property lines into the area for easement area. There being no further discussion from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the preliminary plat for the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition with the following conditions. It was the view of the Planning Commission that the creation of the ponding area creates an attractive nuisance that the City should be responsible for policing. The City should accept responsibility for managing the area because one cannot count on the property owners to manage the area in a coordinated manner. To accept cash in lieu of land for park dedication at a price per acre as determined by the City Council. The south pond area be dedicated as an outlot that has benefit for the future development south and will allow the City control of the land. The bike path be graded, Mallard South to plat boundary; and the bike path be graded and hard surfaced from Mallard Lane to School Boulevard. The motion carried unanimously. Page 3 C� Planning Commission Minutes - 1/4/94 Additional Information Items Discussion of an initial reauest submitted kv the developers. Value Plus Homes, to have the City consider additional souare footaee reauirements for 1 1/4 story. 1 1/2 story. and 13/4 story homes. Planning Commission members felt it was a good idea to look at establishing additional square footage requirements for these styles of homes. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve establishing a public hearing for proposed ordinance amendment establishing square footage requirements for 1 V4 story, 1 1/2 story, and 13/4 story homes. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated the Planning Commission members on the proposed update of the comprehensive plan. Election of Officers. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to reappoint Cindy Lemm as Chairperson of the Monticello Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Cindy Lemm. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to appoint Jon Bogart as Vice Chairperson. Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf Abstaining: Jon Bogart. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Pogo 4 LCP) Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 Public Hearing—Consideration of a variance to Section 9-9 E: 2 (b) ii of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow displav of two additional aremise identification signs. Anolleant. Holldav Stationstores. (J.O.) I,•�Hx�IT.L51►LiT�II;�:117TfI �ei;�iiij,lH Holiday Stationstores requests that the City allow display of three premise identification signs in addition to a pylon sign. Only one premise sign is allowed by ordinance when a pylon sign is present. As you will note on the proposed sign plan, one sign will face Highway 25, one will face 7th Street, and one will face Walnut Street. The sign plan presented did not show the location of any product identification signs. According to the ordinance, Holiday may have two product identification signs in addition to the premise and pylon sign. Their ability to put additional product identification signs is limited because the total square footage of sign area allowed under the ordinance is taken up by the three premise identification signs. The total square footage of all signs does not exceed the maximum allowed. Essentially, Holiday is asking for a variance which would allow them to take the total sign area allowed by ordinance and utilize it through display of premise identification signs only. It should be noted that somehow Taco Bell was allowed to have three premise signs in addition to the pylon sign. I will be checking with Gary to see how this occurred. It is embarassing that Taco Bell was allowed to install a non -conforming sign system. However, the mistake does not serve to create a bona fide precedent. B. ALTERNATIVR ACTIONS: 1. Motion to deny variance based on the finding that there are no unique circumstances or hardship that justify granting of the variance; therefore, granting of the variance would he contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission takes the view that a pylon sign combined with one premise sign is sufficient to identify the name of the business as noted by ordinance, and there are simply no grounds for granting the variance duo to hardship or any other circumstance. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 Motion to deny granting the variance based on the same finding as noted under alternative til, but call for a public hearing to review a potential sign ordinance amendment which would allow additional premise signs to be displayed when a business has frontage on three streets. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would make a finding that a hardship or unique circumstance does not exist to justify granting of the variance requested; however, there appears to be merit in looking at liberalizing our sign ordinance to allow more premise signs (2 or 3) to be displayed where a business has frontage on more than two streets. Under this alternative, City staff would prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance accordingly for review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion to grant the variance to allow (1) or (2) additional premise signs based on the finding that a variance in this case is acceptable because the total sign area proposed under the sign plan does not exceed maximum limits and, therefore, complies with the intent of the ordinance. Motion to include the requirement that no additional product signs are to he allowed because all of the allowable sign area is taken up in premise signs. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that the sign system as proposed basically meets the intent of the zoning ordinance because the total sign area is in compliance. Under this alternative, Holiday Stationstores would not be able to display any product identification signs because if it did, the total sign area would be in excess of the sign area allowed by ordinance. It would seem unlikely that Holiday would agree to such a limitation. Even if Holiday did agree to not display any product signs, it is likely that such an agreement over time would be forgotten and ultimately result in product signs being displayed in addition to the identification signs, thereby resulting in a sign system with a total square footage in excess of maximums allowed under the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative p2. It is our view that there is no justification for it variance based on a hardship. We disagree with the concept of allowing three signs based on the reasoning that the total sign area is in Planning Commission Agenda - 211/94 compliance with the ordinance because ultimately additional product signs could be placed on site, thereby creating a sign system that exceeds the total square footage of sign area allowed. It is our view that this situation is relatively unique and not addressed well by the zoning ordinance; therefore, perhaps it makes sense to look at making some minor modifications to the zoning ordinance to allow for the additional premise sign to be displayed for businesses that have fronting on three rights-of-way. In addition to liberalizing the number of signs allowed, perhaps it makes sense to increase the sign area allowed as well. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpts from the zoning ordinance; Copy of the Holiday Stationstores site plan. identification signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be used to determine the gross silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). ii. Option B. Under Option B, either wall signs or pylon signs may be utilized or a combination of both. In no case, however, shall more than one pylon sign I do- be allowed. Only two oroduet Q �t identification signs and fL=;+=em+pQ identification sign is allowed, and these wall signs must be only on one der separate wall. The total maximum Py allowable sign area for any wall shall Q,;•�� •be determined by taking ten percent 3 (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The method for determining the gross silhouette area for wall signs is as indicated in Option A. 3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings with three (3) or more business uses. The City shall encourage the use of single sign boards, placards, or building directory signs. (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of Option A or Option B (described in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided that: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/46 A .;,,, ;dc,.r4C6: ,Iz 016U66-446% 16 q t�ia.w+,tt�7(a.l J .................... r- --3 �9 am wmwft ---� ..................... 1.647010 4 tl 7 TH STREET 51CMACZ KCl' m w 4 , wtows tot a -v 100. omw M33 O n W Q 014 8•n wv N SW,,,� (•� b n) u.�um '.i'aui' • . sun 1•m Iko CV a �On NORT O f � e -syr (nIODUda�J Is' 9a�4°I as wu an FMMAWIFU POUT O (e-1 Vr . f -off a/m n. Pita sa (e-1 1/r 611 » I1. PEW WAD (e-1 1/r . J -n 1633 6Q rt, 1614 Im U 64 n r PROPOSED PYLON SIGN No SU11t Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 Ppblic Hearing—Consideration of p variance request which would allow two curb cuts where street frontage is less than 280 lineal feet. ADDlicant. Libertv Savings. W.O. ) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Liberty Savings has developed a plan for remodeling the funeral chapel recently purchased by Arve Grimsmo, formerly known as the Lindquist Funeral Chapel. The site plan that Liberty Savings has prepared includes two curb cuts providing access to Broadway. Under the present ordinance, in order for Liberty Savings to have two curb cuts, they need 280 ft of street frontage. A variance is needed because only 176 R of frontage is available. Following is a review of the Liberty Savings site plan followed by a discussion of the variance request and various alternatives. The site plan includes both the funeral home and adjoining single family structure. Under the redevelopment plan, the single family structure will be removed to make way for parking. The funeral home will be remodeled featuring a drive-through window. Drive-through traffic will enter from Palm Street and exit onto Broadway. The site plan has been reviewed for adherence to various zoning ordinance requirements such as setback requirements, parking lot screening from residential areas, etc. The site plan appears to meet all requirements except those being reviewed by the Planning Commission at this time. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES As noted, the site plan calls for two access points to Broadway. The proposed access points will he 46 ft apart, which is slightly in excess of the minimum requirements by ordinance. The east access is aligned with the cast side of the Palm Street median break on Broadway. It is proposed by Liberty Savings that cars leaving the drivo-through lane be allowed to exit both to the right and left onto Broadway. The westerly access point is proposed to be a two-way access allowing traffic to enter and exit at this location. As with the east access, it is proposed by Liberty that cars using this access point be allowed to have full traffic movements, thereby enabling cars leaving at this location to turn left onto Broadway in front of westhound traffic. Apart from the variance request, the proposal to allow traffic exiting onto Broadway to cross the westbound traffic and enter the castbound lane presents some serious questions regarding traffic safety. The City Engineer and a traffic engineer from OSM oppose this approach. Finally, the Wright County Highway Engineer has jurisdiction in this situation. He has already indicated that he does not approve of the proposed design. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 Variance Reauest The need for the variance stems simply from the fact that there is not adequate street frontage for two driveway access points. According to the zoning ordinance, one needs 260 ft of frontage for two driveways. In this situation, the proximity problem is amplified by the potential of full traffic movements for vehicles using the two driveway access points along with East Palm Street. Following are just some problems that could be created by providing full traffic movement at both driveway access locations. A complete review of the traffic movement conflicts will be discussed at the meeting. East Access (Drive-through exit) The level of traffic on Broadway, especially during the evening hours, does not allow for safe crossing of Broadway. The problem is increased by the fact that the drive-through curb cut is not centered with the median break, thereby creating a very awkward turning movement for any vehicle attempting to enter the eastbound lane of Broadway. Furthermore, this traffic movement will also conflict with any vehicles attempting to enter the westbound lane of Broadway from Palm Street, and the movement could also conflict with vehicles attempting to enter the westbound lane from the driveway access to the west of the drive-through. West Accesl The same problems apply to the westerly access, which is aligned to slightly west of the median break. Summary The problems with traffic movements as proposed under the site plan are obvious. The County Engineer has indicated that he would not approve of the plan as proposed. Allowing the plan to proceed under this configuration would likely create a traffic safety problem which would not be to the benefit of either the property owner or the city. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that a hardship does not exist and limit turning movements to a single access point with right inhight out turns only. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that the site plan could be modified to show a single access point onto Broadway and, therefore, a hardship does not exist. Under this alternative, the plan would need to be redesigned to show drive-through traffic merging with parking lot traffic at a single location on site prior to entering Broadway. This alternative presents problems for the developer because it results in internal traffic movement conflicts between pedestrians entering the building from the parking lot and drive-through traffic attempting to leave the site. This problem, however, is created by the drive-through use and should not be considered as an eligible justification or hardship. As a variation of this alternative, Liberty Savings could also explore the possibility of creating a two-way access road onto Palm Street, thereby indirectly providing an exit to the east onto Broadway via Palm Street. This variation would require purchase or control of land to the north of the Liberty Savings site (approximately 10 ft). Purchase of land is necessary because there is not enough separation between the north building wall and the property line to develop a two-way driveway. Motion to deny variance and recommend allowing full traffic movement at a single centered access. Under this alternative, Planning Commision could make a finding that a hardship does not exist justifying a second access. This alternative has the negative effect of resulting in internal traffic flow difficulties for Liberty Savings but has the positive effect of allowing full cast/west movement from the driveway access. This alternative will need to he reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. We have not obtained his input on this alternative at this time. Motion to approve the variance request contingent on limiting traffic movements for both access points to right inhight out. Variance approval could be based on the finding that limiting the traffic movements to right in and right out reduces conflicts created by driveways located in close proximity to each other. Allowing two driveways inside of 178 ft under this circumstance or limitation could serve to limit the precedent set and allow the City to grant two driveway accesses without violating the intent of the ordinance. Alternative p3 would also require County approval. It is very possible that the County would not even allow two driveway accesses even if the driveways aro both right in/right out only. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94 4. Motion to approve the variance request with full traffic movements as proposed. This alternative would be difficult to justify, as there is no unique hardship or situation that prohibits Liberty Savings from meeting the requirements of the ordinance. In addition, this alternative is likely to be dead on arrival because the County would not likely allow full tragic movement onto Broadway as proposed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative t11, which is to limit access to a single driveway with right in/right out access. We also recommend exploration of developing a two-way drive on the north side of the building. This is the best alternative for limiting congestion within the public right-of-way. As a fallback, staff is not opposed to alternatives tit and Q; however, both of these alternatives, prior to acceptance, should be subject to a traffic analysis by a traffic engineer and must be approved by the County Engineer. City staff has met with the developer on numerous occasions to attempt to come up with a compromise as to what is actually the best overall plan for the site. Our conversations have led to numerous alternatives but never to an agreed-upon traffic circulation pattern. It appears that Liberty Savings at this point would prefer to enter discussions with the Planning Commission and Council from a relatively extreme position and negotiate from there. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Liberty Savings site plan, Planning Commission Agenda • 2/1/94 5. Public Hearing—Consideration of a 12 -ft variance to Section 3-8: C7 of the zoning ordinance. which would ,pillow a sign to be sgl back 3 ft from the right-dway. Annlicant. Liberty Savings. AND 6. Public Hearing—Co"illeration of a variance to Section 3-9: D2 of the zoning ordinance. which would allow a non -conforming sign to be changed to another non -conforming sign. ADnlicant. Liberty Savings (J.(5.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Liberty Savings site plan includes development of a pylon sign proposed to be located 3 ft from the Broadway right-of-way. According to the zoning ordinance, pylon signs must be located no closer than 15 ft from the right- of-way. The location of the pylon sign is at the same position of the sign used in conjunction with the funeral home use. According to Liberty Savings, the proposed location for the sign fits the design of the site and provides for better visibility of the sign. There do not appear to be any factors that would create a hardship in this situation. It appears that the variance is not justified in terms of the standard criteria used in evaluating the merits of a variance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to deny both variance requests. This motion could be based on the finding that a hardship does not exist; therefore, granting the variance would violate the intent of the ordinance. Obviously, allowing the variance without justification sets a strong precedent that the City could be obligated to follow in the future. According to the ordinance, signs are supposed to be set hack 15 ft from the right-of-way, and non -conforming signs are not allowed to be upgraded or changed to become now non -conforming signs. The new owner has no grandfather rights to the previous Lindquist Funeral Chapel sign structure; therefore, without proper justification for a variance, the request should be denied, 2. Motion to approve the variance request as proposed. This alternative is difficult to justify as noted above. Planning Commission Agenda - 211/94 Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that a hardship does not exist, etc; however, call for a public hearing to consider amending the zoning ordinance to allow signs to be set back at a position closer to the public right-of-way. There could be some merit in reviewing our current sign ordinance to determine if a 15 -ft setback is excessive. At this point in time, I have not compared this requirement with requirements noted by other cities; however, I plan on contacting the City Planner to determine if this 15 -ft setback requirement is excessive, etc. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 unless the City Planner provides information that would seem to indicate that our 15 -ft sign setback requirement is excessive. If so, then staff recommends alternative #3. I hope to provide more information regarding sign setback requirements at the meeting on Tuesday. A SUPPORTING DATA: See copy of site plan under previous agenda item.