Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-03-1994 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, March 3, 1994 . 7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, and Richard Carlson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6:59 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 1, 1994. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. 3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the minutes of the special meeting held February 22, 1994. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. 4. Public Hearing--Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow open and outdoor storage and consideration of a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Applicant. Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the Sunny Fresh Foods request to allow open and outdoor storage and a conditional use permit for parking lot and drive aisle design standards in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Sunny Fresh proposal includes the addition of a two-story office meeting/office space and employee break room of approximately 8,200 sq ft. The other proposed addition would be a 4,200 sq ft addition in the production area adjacent to the existing production area in the northwest corner of the building. PARKING The proposed parking lot expansion will create a demand of 21 additional stalls. The site plan as proposed will show 119 total parking stalls. Under the ordinance requirement, Sunny Fresh Foods has chosen to be allowed to use the minimum 8 spaces plus 1 space per 2 employees at the maximum shift. There also exists some additional off-street parking spaces at two other locations on their site; one being near the shop portion of their building and the other portion is near the far west end of their building near the northwest corner where some production employees park. Sunny Fresh Foods also has a written joint parking lot arrangement utilizing the Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 . United Methodist Church's parking lot during the work week, with the church utilizing some of the Sunny Fresh drive aisle parking area on Sundays for their church events. Also noted on the site plan are places where existing curb cuts exceed the 24-ft maximum width. The Zoning Administrator and the City Engineer will make a determination on the excess curb widths of these curbs. LANDSCAPING With the renovation of the old creamery portion of their building complex, we saw some additional landscaping plantings that were planted as part of that remodeling project. As part of this expansion project, we will get the completion of the landscaping to accommodate the minimum requirements of the ordinance with the complement of overstory trees in combination with some small shrub plantings along with shrub plantings to act as a natural vegetation screening of existing tanks on the south portion of the existing building. Chairperson Cindy Leffiffi then opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Roberts, Sunny Fresh Foods, explained the proposed expansion plans in detail for Planning Commission members. . Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for any further input from the Planning Commission members. There being no further input from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the conditional use permit allowing outside storage in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to approve a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle and parking requirements in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Motion is based on the finding that the conditional use permits requested are consistent with the character and geography of the 1-2 zoning district. The conditional use permits will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion carried unanimously. . Page 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 5. Public Hearing'--Consideration of amendments to the zoning' map and to the comprehensive plan for the City relating' to rezoning' of the property known as "The Everg'reens." Applicants, Kim Kiellberg, Kiellberg Inc., and Tonv Emmerich, Tonv Emmerich Construction Inc. Planning Commission member, Jon Bogart, indicated that he would like to abstain from voting on this agenda item, as he had a conflict of interest on this proposed request. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's proposed rezoning request of residential land area currently known as "The Evergreens" residential subdivision. In his presentation, O'Neill cited how the proposed rezoning dealt with our comprehensive plan. He commented that if rezoning is allowed to occur as proposed, the applicants would propose to apply to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board for annexation of the agricultural property known as the Klein property. Within the Klein property, the zoning at the time of annexation is A-O (agricultural) with the applicants proposing to rezone that to R-2 as a buffer strip from the 1-2 (heavy industrial), transitioning into a major portion of the area being R-l (single family residential). Within the proposed rezoning request, zoning is proposed to be changed from R-l (single family residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed), B-3 (highway business), B-4 (regional business), and BC (business campus) zoning districts. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta questioned why the curvy roads. Why not put a straight road through? Mr. Jay Johnson, partner with Tony Emmerich Homes, commented on the conflicts with the Amoco pipeline easement and the overhead electrical powerline easements. Glen Nemec questioned whether this is a developer- or City-proposed rezoning. If it is from the developer, it should be generated from the developer and not from the City. O'Neill noted that the request has been submitted by the developer with input from City staff. The proposed request shows a lot of B-4 zoning near the west edge of the proposed rezoning area. Why is there so much B-4 zoning here when we have a tough time keeping businesses in existing business buildings downtown? If we create more B-4 zoning, would there be even more of the trend for vacation of buildings in the downtown area? Where are there other communities that have experienced this type of zoning, either where it's been official to do the rezoning or where it's not worked in other communities? Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 . John McVay, representing the Industrial Development Committee, expressed the IDC's concern that there is not any area for I-I (light industrial) or 1-2 (heavy industrial) zoning in the proposed zoning request. Al Larson, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Chairman, reconfirmed the HRA's position similar to the IDC's position of leaving room for industrial expansion. Larson commented on the number of industrial projects that have come into this community over the last 3 to 5 years. If that trend continues, the City could be out of some type of 1-2 (heavy industrial) or I-I (light industrial) zoning. The comment was also raised that the IDC had not had sufficient time to review this proposed rezoning plan in its entirety. Jay Johnson indicated that the land had been looked at for over one year and Kjellberg's land is not suitable for R-l (single family residential). It is difficult to develop under R-l designation due to easements existing on the property, those easements being Amoco gas pipeline and electrical overhead transmission powerlines. There being no further comments from the public, Cindy Lemm closed the public hearing and opened it up for any input from Planning Commission members. . Concerns raised by the Planning Commission members were as follows: Roadways should be used to separate zoning districts and the need for more industrial zoning. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to table the consideration of amendments to the zoning map and the comprehensive plan for the City relating to the rezoning of the property known as "The Evergreens." Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Brian Stumpf, Richard Martie, and Richard Carlson. Abstaining: Jon Bogart. A motion was also made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to call for a public hearing on rezoning of B-3 areas located west of the Oakwood Industrial Park area from B-3 (highway business) to industrial and to call for a hearing on rezoning of the Lundsten property from 1-2 (heavy industrial) to I-I (light industrial). Motion carried. . Page 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 6. Public Hearing---Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing- open and outdoor storag-e and consideration of parking- lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (lig-ht industrial) zone. Applicant, SMA Elevator. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained SMA Elevator's request to allow open and outdoor storage and for a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. SMA Elevator is proposing to build a 54 ft by 80 ft addition onto their existing building. Within the enclosed site plan, 7 additional off-street parking spaces will be created along the south wall of the proposed addition, and 3 additional parking spaces will be created to the west of the existing office. The existing site currently has hard-surfaced asphalt on the parking lot and concrete curbing around its parking lot drive aisle perimeters. This site also shows 14 existing trees on it. The minimum number of overstory trees that will be required will be 26 total utilizing the building square foot requirement or 12 overstory strees utilizing the lot perimeter requirement. The applicant is proposing a 50% overs tory tree reduction with utilization of the existing overgrown shrubbery around the front and side of their building off of Chelsea Road and Thomas Park Drive public right-of-ways. The proposed existing overstory trees will be spaded out and transplanted at other areas on site rather than where they currently exist in the open and outdoor storage area of their lot. The applicant is proposing to install a screening fence from the northeast corner of their building northerly to the northeast property line and also along the west property line from the proposed new addition southwest corner southerly to the southwest property line. This proposed screening would meet the intent of the ordinance to screen from public right-of-way. The suggestion from staff is that the entire area should be screened similar to what was done at Custom Canopy. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. A representative from SMA Elevator questioned the need for the entire area to be screened in back. Their intent is to utilize the whole lot, but they understood that as long as they screened from the public right-of-way, they met the intent of the ordinance. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it up for any further input from Planning Commission members. Discussion among the Planning Commission members centered around the area that would be needed for the screening fence to be installed. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 . the conditional use permit to allow open and outdoor storage in an I-I (light industrial) zone, with conditions being that the entire outdoor storage area is to receive a screening fence around it. Motion carried unanimously. With the site plan as presented, the applicant does not need to request the conditional use permit for parking lot and drive aisle design reductions. 7. Public Hearing--Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-9: (E) of the zoning ordinance regulating the definition, size, number, and location of premise and product sig-ns allowed within the PZM, B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-I and 1-2 districts. Applicant, Monticello Planning- Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Holiday Stationstores' request to allow building wall business identification signs on all 3 public right-of-ways, those being Walnut Street, Highway 25 (Pine Street), and West 7th Street. In addition, the ordinance will address signs placed on gas station canopies where we don't allow them by ordinance. Under the proposed amendment a canopy sign would be considered to be an eligible- placed display in an allowable wall sign area. . Cindy Lemm than closed the public hearing and opened it up for any input from public. There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened it for comments from Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt comfortable with the proposed ordinance amendment with the exception of the following sentence: "The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less." Instead the sentence should read: "The total cumulative allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less." With that proposed change, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment based on the findings outlined in the City Planner's report. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. . Page 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 8. Public HearingnConsideration of a variance request to allow replacement of . existing non-conforming pylon sign with a new non-conforming pylon sign and reader board sign. The replacement pylon sign to be more square footage than the 200 SQ ft maximum and taller than the 32 ft maximum allowed. Applicant, McDonald's Corporation. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained McDonald's two variance requests that would allow replacement of an existing non-conforming pylon sign with a new non-conforming sign. The existing pylon sign is 64 ft in height as measured from the top of the sign to the freeway public right-of- way. Maximum allowed by ordinance is 200 sq ft of sign area and 32 ft above the road surface where it gains its major exposure. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing for any input from the public. There being no input from the public, she entertained comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members were concerned about the additional square footage of the sign and the height of the sign in relationship to other signs in the area. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the variance request on the sign size requirement based on the finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a unique situation or hardship that would warrant the variance. It is not consistent with the ordinance and would result in a negatiye precedent. Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf, Richard Carlson. Opposed: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to ask for a clarification on the square footage requirement definition for this pylon sign. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was then proposed by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to determine that the square footage for the sign is in compliance with the minimum sign requirement and, therefore, a variance request is not needed. Motion was withdrawn. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Jon Bogart to withdraw denial of the variance request regarding the sign height requirement and to have this request come back to Planning Commission at the next meeting for the Consulting Planner's input on the location of a pylon sign near the public right-of-way for Interstate 94. Motion carried unanimously. Page 7 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 9. Public Hearing--Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-2: (F) of the zoning- ordinance reg-ulating- placement of fences. Amendment would allow placement of fences on a property line onlv with written approval from property owners affected. Applicant. Monticello Planning- Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members the proposed ordinance amendment which would regulate the placement of fences in relation to side or rear property lines. The City Planner has reviewed our ordinance as well as ordinances in effect in other cities and has recommended an alternative if Planning Commission is interested in taking a stronger stand with regard to regulating placement of fences. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Comments from the public were that the problems that had been encountered by the two residents that were in attendance were because fences had been placed right on the property line. In one of the cases, the fence was placed 3 ft onto his property line, and the owner failed to remove the fence and he had to remove the fence and replace it on her property at the rear of her house. In the other example, the property owner came and placed a fence right on the property line and drilled post holes into the ground to secure the posts which support the fence. The holes were dug right up next to where the property iron supposedly was. The property iron was never moved and, to dig the hole around where the property iron was, he had to remove the stake to get the post in. There being no further input from the public, Cindy Lemm then opened to comments from Planning Commission members. Concerns voiced by Planning Commission member Jon Bogart were centered around there being no need to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating placement of fences on residential property. If fences are to be placed on or near the property line they should be allowed to be placed to best utilize their lot. A fence can be erected within 12 inches of a property line, and the person erecting that can still stand on their own property when doing that. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to deny the proposed ordinance amendment regulating placement of fences. Motion carried unanimously. Page 8 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 10. Public Hearing--Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-4: (G) of the zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for the various styles of single family residential structures. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 11. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members that City staff would like to have additional time to review the proposed minimum square footage requirements as proposed by the Consulting Planner. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the consideration of an amendment to Section 3-4: (G) of the zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for the various styles of single family residential structures. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing--Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing minor auto repair and open and outdoor storag-e in a B-3 (hig-hway business) zone. Applicant, Milton Olson. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members that Mr. Olson is still on vacation and would not be in attendance. He would request that the Planning Commission table this and bring it back at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the consideration of a conditional use permit allowing minor auto repair and open and outdoor storage in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating pole construction. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing for a proposed amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating pole construction. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to request City staff to research a proposed amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating pole construction. Motion carried unanimously. Page 9 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94 Additional Information Items 1. Jeff O'Neill explained to Planning Commission the problems that we are having with a zoning ordinance amendment requiring a 4/Sth's vote for approval, while a conditional use permit can be approved by a majority vote. Jeff O'Neill suggested that the Planning Commission propose a zoning ordinance amendment which would regulate approval of zoning ordinance amendments and conditional use permits by City Council by requiring a 4/5th's vote for both of those. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Next proposed regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission would be Tuesday, April 5, 1994, at 7 p.m. The S Planning Commission members present proposed to set this date for their regularly scheduled meeting. 3. There being no further business, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~-~ Ga nderson Zoning Administrator Page 10