Planning Commission Minutes 04-06-1993
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING.. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6, 1993.. 7 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: Richard Carlson
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson; Jeff O'Neill; Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:02 p.m.
2. Brian Stumpf indicated a correction within the motion for approval of the
minutes of the February 2, 1993, and the special meeting held February 16,
1993. The change to the motion for item #2 of the March 2, 1993, minutes is
as follows:
The motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard
Carlson.
A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the minutes as amended of the regular meeting held March 2, 1993.
Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining:
Jon Bogart. Absent: Richard Carlson.
3.
Public Hearing---Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning-
Ordinance which would modify the reg-ulations g-overning- sig'lls as follows:
3-UC1(b): Modify the ordinance to allow a permit for promotional sig'llag'e for
2 weeks of every month or for a total of 168 days each year; 3-9fC](h): Modify
the ordinance that would state that promotional sig-nag-e may bear an
advertising- messag'e. including- product and pricing'; 3-9fFl(e): Modify the
ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cover advertising- and
sig'Oag-e. Applicant. 9 local businesses.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, provided some recent history of the
meetings and conversations relating to this topic that have occurred over the
past few months.
On November 12, 1992, a meeting was held with convenience store owners/
managers and City staff, with Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman. It was the
consensus of this meeting that Dorothy Ritz would prepare an outline of her
request, and City staff would outline the pro's and con's and three basic
options, which would include: 1) Change the existing ordinance;
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
.
2) Liberalization of the existing ordinance to allow more special events, days,
or longer special event periods; and 3) allow 30 sq ft temporary signs or
banners to be placed on display at any business at any time.
On December 1, 1992, Planning Commission members reviewed the existing
ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and was asked to consider
calling for a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to have City staff research further
portable signs and banners in surrounding communities and some metro
communities and return to the Planning Commission with a formal list of
altematives.
On January 5, 1993, City staff prepared additional information relating to the
subject matter. A detailed review of the pro's and con's liberalizing the rules
governing the use of temporary banners as prepared by City Planner, Steve
Grittman. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the
current sign ordinance in effect until a petition for an ordinance amendment
is received.
.
Steve Grittman, Consulting City Planner, made the following comments to the
sign ordinance amendment request. There is no problem drafting a sign
ordinance amendment to meet the request of the applicant.
Clutter Issue: This starts with one business putting up a banner for a
particular product, then other businesses put up a banner with a similar
product advertised on the banner. No net increase in sales is ultimately
accomplished. All that changes is an increase in sign clutter and a diminished
value of existing permanent signs.
With the additional banners does become an enforcement headache for City
staff with constant monitoring of banner permits, when they were put up, and
when they have to be taken down.
Cindy Lemm questioned any metro area community with a more liberal banner
ordinance requirement allowing more days than 30 total days in a year. Most
communities with which Steve Grittman is familiar with or has worked for
have ordinances very similar to the City of Monticello's, whereas maybe in
some communities banners are allowed to remain displayed for a longer period.
Communities treat them on a case-by-case example, starting with enforcement
on a complaint basis.
.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Comments were received as
follows:
Dorothy Ritz: Banners put up for advertising are beneficial or they wouldn't
be put up at all. Both Total Mart locations depend on the summer months'
traffic through town, a major share of their business. To be beneficial, the
banners should be up for a time, then removed and a new, completely different
banner then be put up. A possible option for the Planning Commission
members is to increase the time during the summer months. She would
consider with an additional length of time for more banners to be placed
contacting the City on the time and the length and when they would be
removed.
Currently, Total Mart has other convenience stores in five other communities,
and this is the only community where there is an enforcement of the banners.
Rick Pribyl, Tom Thumb, had the following comments: Mr. Pribyl felt that 2
weeks was not enough time for the placement of banners within a calendar
year. The banner permit system would work with the owners contacting the
City with the date and times that the banners would be up.
.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input
from the Planning Commission members.
Jon Bogart questioned if the banners will help Monticello stores compete
against other stores in other communities along Highway 25 or 1-94. Steve
Grittman commented that a good location will get the majority of the travelers.
The presence of a banner will have a very minor impact. Research reports
support distribution of this sales pattern within this area; people will stop
where it is the most convenient for them for the goods which they would like
to purchase.
Richard Martie commented that 168 days is too many days in a calendar year.
The additional banners would be cluttering of the existing signage which is at
these existing businesses.
Brian Stumpf suggested consider once a month, a banner to be placed once a
month with a possible 60 total days.
J on Bogart suggested weekends only and then the banners be down during the
week.
.
Page 3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
Dorothy Ritz objected to the weekend only. Promotions typically run 2 weeks,
one month at a time. It is very costly because banners are not always given
to the convenience stores by the manufacturer. Dorothy Ritz suggested an
interim period for this proposed ordinance amendment, 3, 6, 9 months for a
real test of it. Memorial Day through Labor Day, with a 9-month period
suggested as the best time frame to give the ordinance amendment a real test.
J on Bogart and Richard Martie commented on possibly 30 days as being the
maximum time frame.
Dorothy Ritz suggested that the primary time being Memorial Day through
Labor Day that the Planning Commission consider ten 5-day periods for a total
of 50 days in a calendar year.
Commission members made the following suggestion that they might consider
up to 40 days per calendar year with a $25 annual fee and/or $5 per
application with a maximum $25 per year.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the
request to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and direct City staff to
come back to the Planning Commission members at the next regularly
scheduled meeting with a refined ordinance amendment. Motion carried
unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
4.
Public Hearinl!--Consideration of a variance request to allow no curbinl! in an
area of future buildinl! expansion, a proposed driveway. Applicant, Jim Beyl
(Custom Canopy).
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Custom Canopy's request to
allow no curbing in areas of their driveway. The areas in the north portion of
their building where the driveways come out of the buildings and easterly out
onto Fallon A venue. This is the area of proposed future expansion. Where
future expansion is to occur, Planning Commission has in the past approved
variances for no curbing in these areas.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Jim Beyl, representing Custom Canopy, explained to Planning Commission
members he would answer any questions that they might have about their
proposed project.
Jon Bogart questioned Mr. Beyl if he would consider putting a small asphalt
lip around the exterior perimeter of the driveway to control water run-off
erosion around the exterior perimeter of the driveway. Mr. Beyl indicated that
they were considering putting this in as part of their bituminous surfacing.
Page 4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the variance request to allow no curbing in an area of future building
expansion, a proposed driveway, with the applicant installing a bituminous
curbing edge around the exterior perimeter of the driveway. Planning
Commission is satisfied that the variance would not impair the intent of the
ordinance. Interpretation of this intent of the ordinance is to allow limited
phasing of a drive area development. Motion carried unanimously with
Richard Carlson absent.
5.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a variance request to allow less than the 5-ft
green area separation between property line and back of curb. Applicant, Dan
Olson/State Farm Insurance.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Olson's request to develop an
off-street parking lot at the site of his newly-purchased residential property
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West 4th Street and
Walnut Street. Mr. Olson is proposing to develop 11 off-street parking spaces
to meet the minimum parking space requirement. With its proposed use, the
parking lot will more than likely not be occupied at all times; therefore,
Planning Commission might want to consider a variance request to the total
number of parking spaces required with an understanding with Mr. Olson that
the City can demand construction of an additional stall if the off-street parking
becomes a problem.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wally Dunning questioned the location of the proposed parking lot on the
property in relationship to his adjoining property which is located just west of
the proposed new parking lot.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve a
variance request to allow one stall less than the minimum number of parking
spaces but require proof of parking. Under the proof of parking requirement,
Olson would agree to construct an additional parking space if the need is
determined by the City. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson
absent.
Page 5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
6.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a conditional use request to allow expansion
of an existing medical clinic in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Applicant. Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital District.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the conditional use request of
the hospital district to expand the newly-purchased clinic building to the east.
O'Neill explained the following area impacts.
On the east property line, the neighboring property is a residential use. Along
this east property line, a proposed screening fence would be installed meeting
the minimum opacity requirements by ordinance.
Parking Lot Design. The proposal calls for 71 parking spaces, which would
meet the minimum ordinance requirement for the proposed 15,000 sq ft
addition. However, considering the hospital district with its hospital building,
nursing home building, and this medical clinic building, the total complexes
are still 45 parking spaces short. Obstacles to increasing clinic parking to
serve other hospital district uses are as follows:
1)
Adding additional stalls to the plan would require extension of a
parking lot toward the river, which would further undermine the
pleasant river setting in the area and further obstruct the view
of the river from the nursing home.
2) Access to other hospital district buildings from this clinic lot may
not be convenient and many problems in allowing users of the
clinic parking lot to enter the nursing home from the east wing,
as entrance and exiting of the nursing home is designed to occur
in the front of the building, which makes the clinic location for
the nursing home parking stalls undesireable.
3) From a legal standpoint, the City may not have leverage to
require development of additional parking to serve other hospital
district uses. Technically, the City lost legal authority to direct
parking location and design when the building permit for the
recent clinic expansion was granted without the district first
obtaining a conditional use permit.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
The Monticello Hospital District was represented by Gary Tushie, Rick
Holloway, and Nancy Dahlin. The hospital district would like the Planning
Commission to consider their conditional use request first with allowing the
hospital district to explain the concept plan which they have come up with
since the public hearing was published for a driveway entrance to the front of
the building.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the conditional use permit allowing expansion of the clinic facility in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff review and approval of detailed landscaping plans.
2. Staff review and approval of design and construction of screening
fence.
3. Staff review and approval of grading and drainage plan.
4. Hospital district providing easements necessary to construct
storm water facility along length of drive area.
5.
Conditioned upon the hospital district consideration of developing
more than 71 stalls at the clinic location and/or consideration of
working jointly with the City to design a long-term plan that
serves the needs of the hospital district while being sensitive to
the nearby residential neighborhood concerns.
.
The Planning Commission is satisfied that the site plan as prepared is
consistent with the purpose of the PZM zone and that the proper action has
been taken to mitigate the negative impacts of this development on adjoining
residential areas. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
The hospital district then explained its concept plan for the development of a
driveway area in front of the existing clinic building. The proposed driveway
as shown on the plan would allow development of this driveway on their own
property with no encroachment onto the City public street right-of-way. With
allowing development onto their property line does pose some problems for the
creation of this driveway. With the placement of this driveway up to the
property line allows only approximately 19 ft of driveway width; therefore, a
single driving lane only could be accomplished by this.
.
Also, a proposed canopy to be constructed over the driveway and the curb being
placed right on the property line requires two variances from the ordinance.
The first variance being a building within the front yard setback requirement,
and the second being allowed to construct a driveway within the 5-ft green
area separation from property line to back of curb.
Page 7
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
It was preferred by the hospital district to be allowed to expand into the public
right-of-way to allow for additional width of the driveway to accommodate a
driving lane where if someone was parked under the canopy in front of the
building loading or unloading person, another vehicle could pass to the left of
that and go around the vehicle underneath the canopy.
The hospital district requested the City to get back to them with the best
alternative for the hospital district to develop the plans for a driveway in the
area in front of the existing clinic building. When a recommended alternative
is presented to them, they will proceed with the public hearing process and be
back before the Planning Commission at their first regularly scheduled
meeting on May 4, 1993, with the Planning Commission members to consider
their request.
7.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of a
roof-covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. Applicant.
Richard Carlson.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Carlson's request to be
allowed a 1-ft variance encroachment within the side yard setback
requirement. Mr. Carlson was before the Planning Commission a few years
ago with his request to allow construction of a garage within the side yard
setback requirement.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no comment from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the variance request to allow construction of a roof-covered open porch within
the side yard setback requirement. The Commission is satisfied that this
situation is significantly unique to warrant the issuance of a variance. Motion
carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
Additional Information Items
1. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration of a request to rezone the Oak Ridge
residential subdivision from R-PUD (residential planned unit development) to
R-1 (single family residential) zoning designation. Applicant, Tony Emmerich.
Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
2.
Set the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday,
April 12, 1993, at 6 p.m. It was the Planning Commission's consensus to set
this as the date.
Page 8
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
3.
Set the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday,
April 26, 1993, at 6 p.m. It was the Planning Commission consensus was to
set this date.
4. Set the next date for the regular Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
Tuesday, May 4, 1993, at 7 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to
set this as the next tentative date.
5. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~
Gar Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 9