Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-03-1993MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5, 1993 - 7 pm. :Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf 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 Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 7, 1993. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Ppblic Hearing --Consideration of a variance reapest to Section 3-5 fDl 9 (il. which would allow more than (1) curb cut oer 125 ft of street frontaee. Applicant. Custom Canoov. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Custom Canopy's request to be allowed to construct an additional driveway curb cut within 125 ft of an existing curb cut. The applicant is experiencing difficulties with the existing drive. It is not sufficient to accommodate a semi -truck tractor with a trailer behind it to go into the westerly -most portion of their building. The applicants have failed to demonstrate a hardship in this space. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Cindy Lemm then opened it up for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Comments from the Planning Commission members questioned if city staff should be working with industrial/commercial property owners to allow curb cuts within 125 ft of each other. Questions were also brought up if there was another appropriate driveway arrangement that could be made with this Property. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to table the variance request. Motion carried unanimously. City staff is instructed to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting to look at an ordinance amendment for the possible lessening of the requirements for placement of curb cuts in commercialfindustrial areas in the city of Monticello. Page I Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/93 Public Hearine--Consideration of ureliminary plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Center lot Addition, Applicant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Pfeffees request to grant preliminary plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition, which consists of a single 2-acre lot located directly north of the Little Mountain Elementary School site on Fallon Avenue. O'Neill highlighted two significant issues for the Planning Commission to address. The first issue dealt with the lot depth, as the applicant was proposing 435.6 ft of lot depth, which would encroach 35.6 ft from I-1 (light industrial) zoning into BC (business campus) zoning. Typically, lot lines are drawn to match zoning district boundaries and vice versa. The second issue relates to the development of landscape screen or berm between the elementary school site and the site of the proposed development. With Mr. Pfeffer rezoning this area from BC (business campus) to I-1 (light industrial), he does not intend to screen this area as previously proposed when he asked for his rezoning. However, Pfeffer has indicated he will plant some type of tree planting separating the light industrial from the school district property. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt very uncomfortable about taking land out of another zoning area and combining it with the zoning for this particular project. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the plat contingent on modifying the lot depth from 435.6 ft to 400 ft. Having one lot within two zoning districts opens us up for possible problems in the future. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/5/93 Public Hearine--Consideration of Dreliminary Dist approval of Point Minnie. ADDlicant. Stuart Hoelund. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the background to the preliminary plat for the Point Minnie subdivision request. The reason it is back before them, as the Planning Commission and City Council had reviewed and approved a preliminary plat in 1990, is it has been more than a year since it was approved, and it then has to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their approval. Cindy Leann then opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for comments from the Planning Commission members. There being no comments from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the preliminary plat request of the Point Minnie subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. Public Henrine--Consideration of an amendment to Chanter 16 of the Monticello Zonine Ordinance which would permit the use of a temuornry ptructure not to exceed 711Qso ft that ip accessory to a Drincionl use on an interim basis fort period not to exceed a specified maximum Dpriod of time. The interim use is nat Lnnsidered to constitute an expansion of a pre- existing, legal pon-conformine use where applicable. Anolicant. Communitv United Methodist Church. Planning Commission member, Jon Bogart, abstained from any comments on this request, as he is a trustee of the church. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated the Planning Commission members on the Community United Methodist Church's request to place a temporary structure on their property. In response to their request, City staff with assistance tirom the City Planner and City Attorney has come up with a proposed ordinance amendment which would allow the permitted accessory structures in an 1.2 (heavy industrial) none only. O'Neill explained the proposed ordinance amendment, which would state "One temporary structure as an interim use not to exceed 700 sq ft that is accessory to a principal use on an interim basis for a period not to exceed a duration of time specified by the Planning Commission. The interim use is not considered to constitute an expansion of a pro -existing, legal non- conforming use where applicable." Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/5/93 O'Neill asked if the Pumpkin Patch Preschool leased space was also used by the Sunday School. Bill Caldwell responded by saying that it is used by the Sunday School on Sundays. A question was raised whether or not one could just consider this use rather than allowing it in all I-2 zones. Stall' responded that we have to treat this use as proposed in the ordinance amendment in all I-2 (heavy industrial) zones. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members were concerned on a time frame and felt a one- to three-year time frame would be sufficient for this proposed use of a temporary structure for classroom purposes. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the ordinance amendment as proposed. Planning Commission makes the finding that the ordinance amendment is consistent with the geography and character of the I-2 zoning district and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the land values in the 1.2 zoning district will not be impacted by the zoning ordinance amendment. One temporary structure is allowed as an interim use not to exceed 700 sq ft that is accessory to the principal use on an interim basis for a period not to exceed 2 years. Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Jon Bogart. Planning Commission member, Richard Carlson, left the meeting at this time. Pp41ic Henring--Consideration of a variange request to pllow a building addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear vard setback reauirement. Aanlicant, Gene Jestus. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Jestus' request to be allowed to construct an addition onto his existing garage, which is a lawful non -conforming structure having been built and so situated on the lot prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jestus' existing garage is approximately 14 ft from the rear property line, and the minimum requirement is 30 ft by ordinance. It is also 4.5 ft from the side lot line with the minimum being 20 ft. O'Neill then showed the video of the property that was taken in the prior afternoon showing the location of the adjacent structures around Mr. Jestus' garage. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Pago 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/93 Mr. Jestus said that he would answer any questions that the Planning Commission members had of his request and that he would merely like to be allowed to expand his existing garage to place his vehicles in the garage and to allow the extra room for his addition to place additional items inside the garage for storage. He has made several improvements to his property and now would like to make the improvement to his existing garage. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic with Mr. Jestus' request but felt that the legal non -conforming structure should be brought into conformance, as Mr. Jestus' has failed to justify a hardship in this case. Therefore, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and sewnded by Richard Martie to deny the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non- conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent. Reason for denial: The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship in his variance request. Public Hgarine--Consiflcration of amendment to Chapter 3.5 1DI 9 (f) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would allow gurb cut vtidths in commercial and industrial districtq to exceed the 24-R width at the tliscrgtion of the Citv Engineer and Zonins Administrator, Applicant, Monticeffo Plannine Commission. City staff is bringing back the proposed ordinance amendment which would allow the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator, at their discretion, to determine curb cut widths in excess of 24 ft. The intent of the ordinance amendment would be to allow the City Engineer, at his discretion, in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator to make a decision on the additional curb cut width rather than go back through a variance request as each case comes up. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for comments from the Planning Commission members. After discussion, it was determined that having an open-ended maximum controlled by City Engineer/Zoning Administrator discretion is superior to establishing a fixed higher maximum. In reviewing ILturo requests for curb cuts in excess of 24 ft, the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator would have to take a look at the existing conditions which would exist there, the actual size of the pavement, bituminous street surface which Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/5/93 serves the driveway curb cut, and also any proposed improvements that would be proposed for this public right of way before making their decision. After discussion, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the ordinance amendment which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed the width of the 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent. Additional Information Items 1. Request to amend Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by changing the R-I (single family residential) side yard setback requirement from ten (10) R on both side yards to six (6) ft on one side and ten (10) ft on the other side. Applicant, Tony Emmerich. Council action: Denied as per Planning Commission recommendation. 2. A conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone, and a variance request to allow a 40-ft curb cut. Applicant, H-Window Company. Council action: Approved the conditional use request as per Planning Commission recommendation. Approved the variance request to allow a 30•ft and a 40-ft curb cut. 3. A request to amend Chapter 10 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by adding a provision that would increase the maximum size allowed for private garages accessory to the residential use in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Randy Ruff'. Council action: Denied as per Planning Commission recommendation. 4. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set Wednesday, November 3, 1993, 7 p.m., as the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting. 5. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda - I V3/93 P�bllc Hearing—Considerg1lon of a request to amend 34 [GI 1(b) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by amending the current requirement that a 2-story dwetUna contain at least 750 so ft of floor area Der story. The section would be amended as follows: "rwo. story dwellings shall contain a total minimum floor area of 960 so ft. The minimum boor area for two-story dwellings shall not include Moor area necessary to accommodate stairwells." ADDlicant. Value Plus Homes. Inc.. of Monticello. Q.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Tom Holthaus of Value Phis Homes, Inc., of Monticello requests that the City amend the current design requirements that limit the ability to build compact two-story buildings commonly built in other communities. Holthaus requested that I review the matter with the City Planner to see whether or not our ordinance is overly restrictive or out of date. I reviewed the matter with the City Planner, and he concurred that our present ordinance is somewhat out of date in this area. Grittman noted that the ordinance as written unduly limits the ability of a builder to construct two-story homes and went on to recommend that we simply change the ordinance by requiring the same amount of floor area for a two- story building as a one-story building; however, we should make a provision for requiring additional floor area to accommodate stairwells in two-story structures. Under our present ordinance, the total square footage of a two-story building must reach 1600 sq ft. Holthaus views this square foot requirement as excessive as there are very livable two-story house designs that have a total floor area that is less than 1500 sq ft. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the zoning ordinance amendment based on the finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the geographic area involved will not result in a depreciation of the area in which it is proposed, it is consistent with the character of the surrounding area, and there is a demonstrated need for such use. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the proposal to liberalize the rules relating to construction of two-story structures makes sense in terms of the zoning ordinance amendment criteria noted in the Mding. This alternative could be justified based Planning Commission Agenda - 11/3/93 on the Planner's report to staff' which indicates that the present ordinance is unduly restrictive and that the City can improve its ability to diversify its housing types by amending the ordinance. The type of two-story homes that will be developed will complement R-1 and R-2 areas and, therefore, are consistent with the geographic area and character of the R-1 zones. 2. Motion to deny the zoning ordinance amendment request as submitted. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that the present ordinance is adequate and is necessary to control two-story structures. Based on the report to City staff made by the City Planner, it is difficult for City staff to prepare a finding in opposition to the request. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the zoning ordinance amendment be approved as submitted. The amendment as proposed will enable diversification of ( housing types within certain development areas without sacrificing the character or quality of the neighborhoods. In fact, diversification could serve to enhance the neighborhoods by providing housing type variety. It is our view that the finding as outlined under alternative #1 is proper and that the amendment should be approved. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of previous zoning ordinance section 34 [G] 1(b); Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment. 9 10. Water towers 11. Poles, towers, and other structures for essential service 12. Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances 13. Television and radio antennas not exceeding twenty (20) feet above roof 14. Wind electrical generators [F] No excluded roof equipment or structural element extending beyond the limited height of a building may occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of such roof not to exceed ten (10) feet unless otherwise noted. (G] MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: 1. ONE AND/OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSESs The minimum floor area for such type buildings shall be as follows: (a) 4?M- tort' Dwelling --960 square feet. �XI 5+� b Two -Story Dwellinq--740 square feet per story. (c) EXCEPTION: The minimum square footage of a one-story building may be reduced to 864 square feet if a garage is added with at least 400 square feet. In no case, however, shall the minimum dimension of that garage be less than 16 feet. (7/22/91, 0210) 2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for elderly housing, living unite classified as multiple dwellings shall have the following minimum floor areas per units (a) Efficiency Units 500 square feet (b) One Bedroom Unite (c) Two Bedroom Unite (d) More than Two Bedroom Units 600 square feet 720 square feet An additional 100 square feet for each additional bedroom 3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: Living units classified as elderly (senior citizen) housing units shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: (a) Efficiency Units MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 440 aquas: felt, � 1 i ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3-9 [G[ 1 (b) RELATING TO MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (b) Two-story dwellings shall contain a total minimum floor area of 960 sq R. The minimum floor area for two-story dwellings shall not include floor area necessary to accommodate stairwells. Adopted by the Monticello City Council on November 3, 1993. Mayor City Administrator Planning Commission Agenda - 11/3/93 Public Hearing —Consideration of a request for a 2-ft variance to the 10-ft side yard setback requirement. Reauest is in coniunction with construction of an addition to a single family dwetUng. Location; Block 8. Lot 14. Lower Monticello. Aoglicant. Kevin and Mary Hook (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Kevin and Mary Hook request a variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of an addition to their home within a portion of the side yard setback. Their request is for a 2-ft variance to the 10-ft side yard setback requirement. It is possible to build the addition without a variance. However, Mrs. Hook has explained that the additional 2 ft is needed to enlarge an existing room on the east side of the structure. If the variance is not granted, then they will need to move an interior wall to the west in order to make this particular room larger. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not the request complies with the requirements for granting a variance as outlined in the ordinance. It appears that the request does not comply with the statutory criteria for a variance. There is sufficient room for an addition to he constructed without encroaching on the side yard setbacks. The property can still be economically used for the purpose for which it is intended. There is nothing unique nor is there any hardship that would justify granting of the variance. Mrs. Hook indicates that denial of the variance will create a problem in that they will need to move an interior wall of their structure in order to gain more useful space on the cast side of the home. This particular justification for a variance is economic in nature and, therefore, does not appear to be sufficient grounds for granting a variance. Finally, to reiterate, a variance should only be granted in those circumstances where a true hardship is presented by a unique factor, generally topographical in nature and not self-created whereby the property cannot he put into a reasonable use without deviating from the ordinance. According to the City Attorney, a hardship cannot he based on economic criteria, and arguments concerning "better use of the property" are generally immaterial. Finally, a variance should never be granted on the theory that no one is opposed to it or that the variance will not hurt anybody. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/3/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the variance request. 2. Motion to deny granting a variance request based on a finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated, and the property can still be economically used for the purpose for which it is intended. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request based on the discussion outlined above. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from ordinance defining criteria for granting variances; Copy of site plan to be provided at meeting. OF sov CSIIFICATrr F, 0 . c;:Wyy- Soo �Ol fact that the proposed action will not: ,1 [A] Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent Vt�D property. lll[B] Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. [C] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (D] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. 23-4: !ON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the City staff, make a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. G A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of MONTICE ZONING ORDINANCE 23/1 \\U vv record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the onwer of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the strict application of this ordinance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, providing such relief may be granted without Impairing the ntent of this zoning ordinance. 23-51 APPEALS: The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written report and recommendation of the City staff, make a finding of fact and make a decision on appeals where it In alleged by the applicant that error has occurred in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector in the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shell be filed no later than ninety (90) days after the applicant has received a written notice from the Building or said appeal shall be considered void. Planning Commission Agenda - 1113/93 Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 5-ft yariance to the side yard setback requirement requested in conjunction with construction of a detached aara¢e. Location is Block B, Lot 14. Lower Monticello. Apnllcant. Kevin and Mary Hook. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In addition to the variance request associated with the new addition they are planning, the Hook household is also planning on developing a new garage which will replace the existing garage. The Hooks propose that the new garage be placed along the same alignment as the existing garage. The existing garage is 5.5 It from the lot line. In order to place the new garage along the same setback line, a variance of 4.5 ft is necessary. Mr. and Mrs. Hook would like a variance to the side yard setback requirement in order to build a garage with a 24' x 32' dimension without impacting a tree on their lot. It should also he noted that a non -conforming garage exists on the adjoining property. In fact, this garage is located on the lot line. Approving the variance request allowing a 5.5 ft setback would place these two structures 5.5 ft apart, when under normal circumstances they should be almost 20 ft apart. According to Gary, this narrow separation is not a problem from the building code standpoint; however, construction of the western wall of the Hook structure, if placed as proposed, would need to be built to a higher fire rating. In order to achieve the higher fire rating, all they would need to do is sheetrock the wall. As with the other Hook variance request, the Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not the request meets the criteria for granting a variance. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not the need to remove a tree in order to develop the accessory building constitutes a hardship. It should be noted that this rationale for granting a variance has not been sufficient justification. As you may recall, a variance request submitted by Mr. Drayna for a garage located at 13 Linn Street was denied even though they made the argument that requiring placement of the garage in the proper position would result in removal of certain trees on the property. Planning Commission Agenda - 1113W It appears that there is sufficient area on the property to allow proper placement of the garage without the need to encroach on the setback requirements. Therefore, there is no hardship or unique situation that would justify granting of the variance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the variance request. 2. Motion to deny the variance request based on a finding that the request does not meet the criteria for granting a variance as outlined by ordinance, there is nothing unique or a particular hardship associated with the request, and the property can be put to reasonable use without deviating from the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative ti2. As an alternative to granting the variances, Planning Commission may wish to discuss the possibility of reducing the setback requirements in certain areas in the community where lots of record are typically 66 R wide. The current aide yard setback requirement (10 ft) is designed to compliment a minimum lot width of 80 ft which nets a buildable area of 60 ft. In the old part of town, where lots are 66 ft wide, the setback requirement nets a buildable area of 46 ft. Perhaps the side yard setback requirements should be liberalized to provide more building area. I will be seeking input from the City Planner on this topic and report his comments at the meeting. P.SUPPORTING DM: See copy of criteria with other Hook item; Copy of site plan to be provided at meeting. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/3/93 6. Public Hearina—Consilleration of q request for a conditional use uermit allowing outside storase. Annllcant. Custom Canoov. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Custom Canopy requests a conditional use permit allowing outside storage in conjunction with the recent development of their new facility at the intersection of Dundas Road and Fallon Avenue. The request for the conditional use permit is somewhat after the fact because the original site plan did not include any reference to outside storage. It was our original understanding when the building permit was issued that all storage of materials would occur inside of the structure. Now that City staff has a better understanding of the method of operation, it appears that the development will need to obtain a conditional use permit. OUT8I1DE STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT On October 25, 1993, I met with Steve Birkeland, President of Custom Canopy, regarding his request for a conditional use permit request. Following is a summary of the discussion which outlines steps or conditions associated with meeting the minimum requirements for obtaining a conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Pronosed Conditions The area directly north of the paved area is considered to he a storage area rather than a parking area. This area is used primarily for storage of materials to be used in future projects and also is used for short-term storage of semi -trailer Ducks that carry materials to and from work sites. It was determined that this area will be screened from view through the use of an 8-ft high screening fence that will extend from the northeast corner of the structure along the curb line to 10 ft from the Fallon Avenue right-of-way. The screening fence would then he extended northerly along Fallon Avenue to a distance of about 100 ft from the driveway access point on Fallon Avenue then extended across the property along the rear property lino to a point approximately even with the northwest corner of the existing structure. The intent of this amen is to shroud the view of the storage from the Fallon Avenue right of way. (see site plan) Planning Commission Agenda - 1113/93 Materials stored onsite shall not be stacked to an elevation higher than the screening fence. 2. The storage area will be graded so as to allow drainage to the Fallon Avenue ditch line at an elevation approximately level with the existing paved surface. The storage area will be surfaced with a crushed concrete material. The entire area enclosed by the fence will be covered with this material. 3. It was also determined that the landscaping plan would be modified per the ordinance requirements to incorporate the presence of the screening fence, and the tree planting requirements would be modified to include a larger development area. It was determined the tree plantings would be established at 26-ft to 30-ft intervals along the Fallon Avenue side of the screening fence. 4. No storage of materials shall be allowed in areas designated on the site plan for parking. 6. The grading plan and screening fence design will be subject to review and approval by city staff. —IS- Gva-t y'/P1-- -Ca . In addition to agreeing to the criteria noted above, Birkeland mentioned that he will be developing a paint booth which will be placed along the northwest side of the existing structure. He will also be installing a crane to assist in loading and unloading materials from trucks inside the building. These two developments will improve his ability to store materials inside rather than outside. Proper execution of items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 above should assure the City that the development will meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with regard to screening of materials stored outside. B. AI.TRRNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve conditional use permit contingent on execution of items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 above as described in the attached site plan.. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the plan as proposed sufficiently meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, which requires that materials stared outside be screened from view from the public right-of-way. In meeting the requirements, the plan is consistent with the character and geography of the area and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/3193 2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that the plan for screening the outside storage area is insufficient and needs further enhancement or modification in order to accomplish its goal. Planning Commission should take this position if it is concerned that the method of operation as proposed will create a negative impact on the adjoining area. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The city ordinance clearly allows outside storage in an I-2 zone; however, said storage areas need to be screened from view from the public right of way. It is our view that the plan as proposed will accomplish this goal; however, we are concerned about the possibility of the use of the trucks to store items. The height of material stored on the trucks may exceed the height of the screening fence; therefore, we could have a problem in obtaining the desired screening effect with an 8 ft fence. A possible amendment to the conditions would require that the screening fence be of sufficient height to screen the view of the vehicles and associated materials stored on the beds of the trucks. The Planning Commission could also require that the storage area be set back more from the public right-of-way in order to accommodate landscape plantings along the fence line. Perhaps 10 ft as proposed is not sufficient to allow sufficient room for trees to thrive. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan; Copy of excerpt from zoning ordinance.