Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-04-1994RE AGENDA REGULAR 1VIEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 4. 1894 -7 p.m Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 3, 1993. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a preliminary plat request of phase N, Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes. 4. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 3, 1983 . 7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf Members Absent: Richard Martie Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, 011ie Koropchak The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:04 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 5, 1993. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. 3. Public Hearing. -Consideration of a reauest to amend 34 fGllfbl of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by amending the current reouirement that a 2 - story dwelling contain at least 750 so ft of floor arga per story. The section would be amended as follows: "2-stoory dwellings shall contain a total minimum floor area of 960 so ft. Minimum floor area for a 2-sp v dwelling shall not include floor area necessary to accommodate stairwells." Applicant. Value Plus Homes. With the Planning Commission Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, noting that the applicants were not there, she asked for a motion to continue the public hearing until the next meeting when the applicants were here. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to continue the public hearing until the next meeting when the applicants are here. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. 4. Public Henrine.-Consideration of a request for a 2 -ft variance to the 10 -ft side vard setbeck regairement. Request is in conjunction with the construction of an addition to n single fjimily dwelling. Location: Block 5. Lot 14. Lower Monticello. Applicant. Kevin and Mary UoA. AND Public Hearina.-Comiderntion of a feauestJor a 54 variance to the side yard setback reauirement reauested jn coniungtion wish construction of a detached garage. Location is Block 5. Lot 14. Lower Monticello. Applicant. Kevin and Mary Hook, Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Kevin and Mary Hook's request for a variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of an addition to their home within a portion of the side yard Page 1 �� Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/93 setback requirement. Their request was for a 2 -ft variance to the 10 -ft side yard setback minimum requirement. The Hooks are requesting the 2 -ft variance encroachment to enlarge the existing room on the east side of the existing structure. Upon consideration of the variance request, the 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 be put into reasonable use without deviating from the ordinance. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Lee Hatfield, adjoining neighbor to the west of the applicant's property, informed Planning Commission members he had no problem with the Hook's request, that it would be an enhancement to both his property and also their property. Dave Ecceles, Kevin and Mary Hook's builder, explained why location is needed, as the entrance to the garage where it currently sits is located on a straight -in location. To allow entrance into this garage, the garage must remain in its present location within the side yard setback requirement. Mr. Hook suggested that the Planning Commission members consider an ordinance amendment to reduce the minimum setbacks for detached garages. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for further input from the Planning Commission members. Concerns addressed by the Planning Commission members were that if they granted a variance request for an encroachment into the side yard setback for additions to the existing structures, it might set a precedent for future applications. The locations of garages when they were placed on the lots in the Original Plat addition and the Lower Monticello plat additions in the city of Monticello were placed here and there with no rhyme or reason to their locations in regard to setback requirements. If a variance was granted in this case, as might have been the case as some other variances at other times by previous Planninti Commission members, it would set a precedent to future variance requests wherein there really is no hardship other than the hardship that was created with location of these prior to these people purchnsing the property with no setbacks required by ordinance. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to deny the request for a 2 -ft variance to the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Reason for denial is based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated and the property can still be economically used for the purpose for which it is intended. Page 2 I Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/93 Upon previous discussion, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to look at a possible ordinance amendment in the Original Plat and Lower Monticello Additions in the city of Monticello to allow detached garages or detached accessory buildings to be located closer than the 10 -ft minimum side yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Consideration of a request for a conditional use nermit to allow outside storaee. Anolicant. Custom CianoDV. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Custom Canopy's request for a conditional use permit to allow outside storage in conjunction with the recent development of their new facility. As part of the outside storage conditional use permit, O'Neill explained some proposed conditions associated with the conditional use permit allowing outside storage. The area north of the paved area is considered to be storage area rather than parking area, this area is used primarily for storage of materials to be used in future projects and also used for short -tern storage of semi -trailer trucks that carry materials to and from work sites. It was determined that this area will be screened from the 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 Fallon Avenue right-of-way. The screening area will then be extended northerly along Fallon Avenue to a distance of 100 ft from the driveway access point on Fallon Avenue, then extended across the property along the rear property line to a point approximately even with the northwest corner of the existing structure. The intent of the screening is to screen the view of the storage from the Fallon Avenue right-of-way. The storage area will be graded to allow drainage to the Fallon Avenue ditch 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. It was determined that the landscaping plan would be modified per 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 25 -ft to 30 -ft intervals along Fallon Avenue side of the screening fence. L Pago 3 ��� Planning Commission Minutes - I V3/93 No storage of materials shall be allowed in areas designated on the site plan for parking. The grading plan and screening fence design and setback will be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner and staff. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing Cindy Lemm then read a letter from the Industrial Development Committee expressing their concerns on the manufacturing that is occurring on the paved area to the north of their existing building and also the outside storage of materials on or near this paved area. The garbage dumpster in its location in the southeast corner of the existing building, if it could be relocated back inside the building or into a screened -in fenced area. Mr. Birkeland, representing Custom Canopy, explained due to the nature of the additional volume of their business this year, which was not quite expected, they haven't had time to get the overhead crane inside, which would take care of loadingtunloading for a majority of the items which are currently stored outside. He did agree that the area was being used for manufacturing and also for the storage of some materials used in the construction of the canopies which his company builds. Mr. Birkeland questioned the height of the proposed screening fence that would be needed to screen the majority of his property of the materials that would be stored in there. You would still be able to see his two van trucks that are parked in there and also the semi -truck tractors when they are parked in there, even with an 8-11 high fence. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for comments from Planning Commission members. Without the crane being installed at this time, would the screening fence be completed by December 31, 1993. They also voiced their concerns on the screening fence in relationship to the material that would be stored on a semi -truck tractor trailer. If the material is stored on this trailer, would the screening fence still be of sufficient height to screen this? There being no further comments from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the conditional use request allowing outside storage in an 1.2 (heavy industrial) zone with the following conditions: The entire area used for storage and hard surfaced parking and an additional area approximately 100 ft north of that to he entirely enclosed with an 8 -ft high screening fence around the east, north, and west side up to the existing northwest corner of the building or up to the building of a proposed paint room addition. Page 4 ��r Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/93 2. The storage area to 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. The landscaping plan would be modified per ordinance requirements to incorporate the presence of a screening fence, and the tree planting requirements would be modified to include a larger development area. The tree plantings to be reviewed by City staff prior to planting. 4. No storage of materials shall be allowed in areas designated on the site plan for parking or driveway, which also includes the existing garbage dumpster placed out in the southeast corner of the building to be relocated within the screened, fenced -in area on the north side of the building. b. Grading plan and the screening fence design and final location will be subject to the review and approval by the City Planner and staff. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Conqiderntion of a request for a conditional use vermit which woplo allow outside sales, outside stornee. and ponsideration of a parkine and drive aisle conditional use nermil. Location: Lot 1. Block 2. Oakwood Industrial Park. Aoolicant. Simonson Lumber. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Simonson Lumber's requests as follows: Conditional use Wrmit allowipe out$ideas les. On the enclosed site plan, you will note near the main gate is an area where storage sheds are constructed and also used as a sales area for these storage buildings. The location of the storage sheds does not appear to be o problem, only if it is used for outside sales. not for the use of the manufacturing or building of these storage sheds in this area. Conditional use permit nllowine outside storago. The ordinance requires that all outside storage be screened from the view from the public right-of-way. The proposed plan by Simonson's has the area on the west side of their building site to be screened with a screening fence; however, Simonson's would not like to screen the northeast portion of their building Page 6 ��� Planning Commission Minutes - 1 V3193 site which is currently used for building material storage where customers can come in and pick up the building materials that are needed, most generally the building material is dimensional lumber in this area. This is the area which Simonson's would not like to screen at all. Parking lot and drive aisle conditional use germit. The parking lot serving Simonson Lumber and the driving area serving the lumber area were all designed prior to the zoning ordinance. The parking lot features a paved area without curb and gutter. Simonson's is requesting not to install curb and gutter in these areas. On the west side of the property, they are proposing to put in a cedar split rail fence. 4. Landscaaing. According to the ordinance, the site should contain a minimum of 43 overstory trees. The current site contains 11 overstory trees and some shrubs, which leaves 27 trees which need to be planted. The proposed plan calls for planting of 18 additional trees. If a credit of 10 trees is provided for shrub planting, there remains a deficit of 9 trees. You will note on the proposed site plan where the additional trees are proposed to be planted. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Mark Klaverman, representing Simonson Lumber Company, explained that Simonson's is proposing to meet the minimum city requirements as far as outside sales area goes, as they will relocate the manufacturing or building of these storage buildings to an area near one of their storage buildings in the back of their lot. Therefore, the buildings, when they are completed, will be placed in the area for the outside sales. In the outside storage area, they are willing to screen on the west side of their property, and on the northeast portion of their property, they would like to leave this open with no screening fence installed around it. Mark indicated that this area is retail oriented with the customers coming in to pick up their dimensional lumber which is stored in these areas, whereas it's not used strictly by Simonson's for the loading of these materials onto their trucks to be delivered out to the customers job sites. Parking lot and drive aisle --would like it to remain as is without any curb and gutter around its perimeter. They are proposing to add an additional cedar split rail fence along the west side of the parking lot to further discourage customers from driving through this area off the hard surfaced paving onto the grassy area. By the addition of curbing around the existing parking lot, it would be cost prohibitive at this time, as the parking lot is nearing its useful life expectancy and would be ready for an overlay in the upcoming years. If the curbing is installed at this time Page 6 Com. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/93 and the patchwork that is going would have to go in in conjunction with the concrete curbing, it would be cost prohibitive for them to do that at this time. Mark also indicated they would propose to plant additional trees as noted on the enclosed site plan. There being no further comment from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the parking hearing and opened it up for additional comments from Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt the northeast storage area needed to be screened, as well as the area on the west side of their building site. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the conditional use permit allowing outside sales area contingent on the following: a. No construction of articles sold in the outside sales area is allowed. Construction activities must occur within the screened -in area of the facility. b. If the need for additional parking arises, the outside sales area must be converted to a parking area at the discretion of the City of Monticello. Completion of the landscaping plan as required by the City. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Decision U2: A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the conditional use permit allowing outside storage contingent on the following: a. The area containing lumber and other items for sale along with Chelsea Road is considered an area for outside storage and thus should be screened appropriately. b. Completion of the landscaping plan as required by the City. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Decision 03: A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit. The east, west, and north sides of the existing parking lot perimeter to be curbed with concrete curbing. Voting in favor. Richard Carlson, John Bogart, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Cindy Lemm. Absent: Richard Martie. Page 7 / 7 J Planning Commission Minutes - 1 V3/93 Decision #4: A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the landscaping plan as proposed. Voting in favor: Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. Absent: Richard Martie. Review potential residential develooment of Robert Krautbauer prooertv and identify development eoals/oerimeters. Planning Commission members gathered around the table to look over the proposed development of the Robert Krautbauer property and offered their input into the potential development of his property. No formal action was taken at this time. Additional Information Items 1. Consideration of a variance request to Section 3-5 [D19(j), which would allow more than one (1) curb cut per 125 ft of street frontage. Applicant, Custom Canopy. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 2. Consideration of preliminary plat approval of "Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition." Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 3. Consideration of preliminary plat approval of "Point Minnie." Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 4. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would permit the use of a temporary structure not to exceed 700 aq ft that is accessory to a principal use on an interim basis for a period not to exceed a specified maximum period of time. The interim use is not considered to constitute an expansion of a pre-existing legal non- conforming use where applicable. Applicant, Community United Methodist Church. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 5. Consideration of a variance request to allow a building addition onto a non- conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Gene Jestus. Council action: Denied as per Planning Commission recommendation. Page 8 /��� Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/93 Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 [D19(f) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed the width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 7, 1993, at 7 p.m. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set this as the date for the next meeting. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 9 %� Planning Commission Agenda - 1/4/94 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a oreliminam plat request of Phase IV. Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Anglicant. Value Plus Homes. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: 3f Value Plus Homes, Inc. of Mon ' llo requests that the Planning Commission consider reco ending approval of the 4th phase of the Cardinal Hills residenti subdivision, which consists of 59 residential lots and approximately 244cres. Following is a review of the preliminary plat, along with discussion of topics that require special attention by the Planning Commission. PARCEL STANDARDS/EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS City stall' has reviewed the plat for compliance with lot design, roadway width, and easement standards and found that the plat meets minimums Additional easement width will be needed for Lots lb and 16, Block 2, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, to accommodate storm sewer pipes at these locations. Also, the final location of the storm water easement has not been defined by r the City Engineer for lots adjacent to the south pond. The final plat will need to be adjusted at such time that the proper easement location is identified. An easement or agreement allowing storm water to (low from the platted area across future phase V to the northeast pond will also he needed. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS A description of the utility system providing the development with sanitary sewer and water has not been included with phase IV because it has already been determined that it is feasible to serve this plat as proposed. STORM WATER SYSTEM The project as proposed shows development of a storm water ponding area along the southern boundary of the property (south pond). This facility will serve to maintain storm water from the 4th phase. The existing pond developed with the 3rd phase will he connected to the south pond developed with the 4th phase. All approvals aro in place allowing intrusion into the wetland areas. These approvals were obtained when the original grading plan was approved prior to construction of Phase I in 1990. el d'�Qt - is p.�,�� ..;.�� C•\` 1�;u oar Planning Commission Agenda - 1/4/94 PARK DEVELOPMENT When the second phase of Cardinal Hills was developed, the Parks Commission recommended that the City accept the park in the northwest quadrant of the development (2.7 acres) and a proposed tot lot (.b acres) in the southeast section of the development. The land ama.of the two park areas amounts to approximately 1/3 of the standard park dedication area required with this plat. The developers requested 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 approvedby Council, Council accepted cash in lieaof the park land as satisfying the park requirement for phase III. However, Council mademo commitments regarding the park requirement associated with development of phase IV through completion of the project. It is expected that the developers will be requesting that the City make a final determination as to what the park dedication requirement will be for the balance of the development. The park dedication requirement question was again brought to the Parks Commission for their input at a recent meeting. The Parks Commission held firm on their original recommendation. They continued to hold the view that the school property along with the two perks provided sufficient park space for the area However, it was also their view that a strong effort in the thture should be made to acquire land south of the south pond for park purposes. This land would be acquired with development of the acjjolning land to the south. The Parks Commission was enthused about a central park at this location. In their recommendation, the Parks Commission proposed to acquire the south pond as an outlet to be connected to the future park area The public works department is opposed to this concept. It is their view that the area should be encumbered by a storm drainage easement. Here aro some pro's and con's for taking the areas as an outlet for park purposes: If taken as an outlet, the south pond could be used for skating, thereby freeing up other adjacent park areas for other uses. The public works department does not like the concept of using ponds for skating duo to potential liabilities. It should be noted that presently we allow skating at the Meadow Oak Park pond and even have installed a light there. Also, there are numerous examples of other cities that use drainage pond Qicilities to their advantage in providing winter recreation opportunities. Planning Commission Agenda - 1/4/94 As another consideration, if taken as an outlot, the City would have more responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the property. The City would he responsible for control of noxious weeds and responsible for removal of materials that could be dumped on the property. Finally, a park to the south of the pond could gain the aesthetic advantage of the pond on its north side with or without City ownership of the pond area. The only aspect lost by taking the land as easement only is the loss of the ability to use the ponds for skating. The bottom line: If the Planning Commission thinks that 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 the area, then it should be taken as an easement. SIDEWALKIPATHWAY It is proposed that a pathway easement be provided between Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, to allow limited pedestrian access to the south pond area. This pathway will be extended through the south pond area across a sand filter which will act as a bridge. The bridge will be connected to the future park to the south. ROAD SYSTEM The fourth phase calls for further development of Starling Lane, Mallard Lane, and a portion of Pelican Avenue. Due to the fact that Pelican Lane is not being constructed to meet Mallard Lane, all of the homes located on Mallard will only be able to access their homes from the west. Therefore, in the short-term, there will be poor distribution of traffic originating from Mallard [,nine. This will only become a significant problem if phase V is not developed. To offset the potential problem, it should be required that the developer agree to provide roadway easement rights across the portion of Pelican that is proposed to he developed with phase V. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 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 second phase of the development. This aspect of the plan is, therefore, non -controversial. However, the Parks Commission requests a chance to roview the specifics of how the south pond will be graded. They wanted it to he graded in a manner that would enhance or establish a natural pond appearance. C L' �i PNIV S �V J >i •� L ' Planning Commission Agenda - 1/4/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition with conditions. J Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the preliminary plat of the proposed 4th addition meets City minimums oc v and is designed in the proper manner. A list of conditions will be Lfurther defined during the discussion, which would address the park/storm pond issues. Such issues include: l+c`wv J 1. Park Dedication --to accept or not cash in lieu of land) Q` \f 2. 2. South Pond—to accept the south pond as an outlot or as easement area. 3� G- . �vv� hS S -C.. L4S[ hrN�T �j �Q 1'( 0 "0 I 2. Motion to table orWeny a recommendation to approve the preliminary c6d4i plat of the proposed Cardinal Hills 4th Addition. This alternative could be selected if the developer is not willing to make adjustments to the preliminary plat or abide by conditions as requested by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as identified by the Planning Commission. If all the issues relating to this plan can be ironed out at the meeting, then it might make sense to go ahead and approve the preliminary plat. On the other hand, if additional time for research is necessary or if input from other sources is desired, etc., then this alternative should not be adopted. A SUPPORTINd DATA: Copy of the preliminary plat of proposed Cardinal Hills 4th Addition. Ee., — --k ""---,.Jti C'1 -a ih%. 1 d