Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-11-1984 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1984 - 8:01 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran, Richard Carlson. Members Absent: Ed Schaffer. Staff Present: Gary Anderson. The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 8:08 P.M. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran, to approve the minutes of the August 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from 1-1 to B-3 - Applicant, Burger King Corporation. Mr. Bob Hoida, Site Development Engineer, was present from Burger King corporation to present their proposal for rezoning of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Addition from 1-1, Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway Business. Mr. Hoida showed to Planning Commission members renderings of the drawings of a site plan for the proposed new Burger King Restaurant and also a side view of the proposed Burger King Restaurant. Mr. Hoida indicated to Planning Commission members Burger King's intent of the rezoning from 1-1 to B-3 is that it would be very compatible with what is existing there both from their end of the restaurant end of commercial business to accommodating with the other allowable uses in B-3 Zoning. Chairman Jim Ridgeway opened the meeting for any comment from the public. There being no input from the public, a motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the rezoning request of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Addition from 1-1, Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway Commercial. Motion carried unanimously, with member Ed Schaffer absent. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Requests: 1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed. 2) To allow a crushed rock truck parking lot surface rather than the hard surface. 3) To allow a 30-foot driveway entrance instead of the required 24-foot driveway entrance. Applicant, Burger King Corporation. 1) Discussion centered around the actual height of the pylon sign and the interpretation of the Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, along with Planning -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 . Commission members' interpretation, is that the 32 feet in sign height is actually from the top of the roadway surface at the highest point adjacent to the freeway, that being the Highway 25 bridge which extends over the freeway. Mr. Hoida indicated to Planning Commission members that through trial and error using a boom truck, Burger King extended the aerial bucket into the air approximately 45 feet and then while driving from the east coming out of Minneapolis and driving from the west coming out of St. Cloud, they found that with the sign 45 feet high, they could just see the top portion of the sign. When it was raised to 50 feet in height, in driving from the east and from the west on Interstate 94, they found that the bucket at an extended height of 50 feet would be very visible from 1-94 either from the east or the west. Commission members indicated to Mr. Hoida that they see no need for a Variance at this time as long as the top of the pylon sign is not more than 32 feet above the driving surface at the Highway 25/1-94 bridge driving surface. . 2) Mr. Hoida indicated Burger King's intent at this time was to only hard surface the area needed for parking and driveway requirements for the Burger King Restaurant. What they would like a variance from would be an additional lot that they would like to be used for semi-truck tractor parking and/or campers or fifth-wheel camper trailers. The surface they would like to use for this would be a crushed limestone surface with no curb and gutter put in at this time. Chairman Jim Ridgeway indicated to Mr. Hoida through this experience at Wrightco, they just lease a portion of land from the Railroad. The surface they have on there is a crushed rock surface, and they are continually filling in the holes left by the semi-truck tractors due to maneuvering around of the semi-truck tractors on this type of surface. And with this type of surface, it is of continual maintenance. You are always, at several times during the year, back out there putting more crushed rock surface into the holes left from the semi-truck tractors. Mr. Hoida's content is a two-fold request that the reason they would not like to put it in at this time is the soil conditions underneath. They would like to be allowed time for the soil to settle. At that time, within a reasonable amount of time, the surface could actually be hard surfaced. Also, right now, due to budget restraints on this particular project, it doesn't accommodate for the entire surfacing of the parking lot and the truck parking lot. Chairman Jim Ridgeway opened up the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Darkenwald, Darkenwald, Inc., questioned as to why the Burger King location here would have to install hard surfacing of the truck parking lot where the City of Rogers granted a Variance to Burger King to not hard surface the truck parking area of the new Burger King Restaurant going up in Rogers, Minnesota. However, the bids did come in favorably, and it was within budget, so the truck parking area was hard surfaced in Rogers. . -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. Hoida that the City does not allow bituminous curbs to be installed where our requirements are only the concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Hoida indicated at this time the concrete curb and gutter could be installed around the perimeter of the truck parking lot area. Motion by Joyce DOWling, seconded by Don Cochran, to deny the Variance Request to allow crushed rock surface instead of the hard surfacing of the truck parking lot. 3) Mr. Hoida indicated the driveway entrance width Burger King is desiring would be a 30-foot driveway entrance where the Ordinance allows up to a maximum of a 24-foot driveway entrance. The reasoning behind the wider driveway access width is the allowable turning radius for semi-truck tractors and also for fifth-wheel campers behind a pickup or a camper-trailer being pulled behind a car or pickup. There being no public input, motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Don Cochran, to approve the Variance Request to allow a 30-foot driveway entrance instead of the required 24-foot driveway entrance. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow less than the Required 10-foot Sideyard Setback - Applicant, Jay Miller. Jay Miller was before Planning Commission members again to discuss with them applying for a Variance to be within 10 feet of the sideyard setback on the southwest side of the property. Mr. Miller indicated to Planning Commission members that he does not own the adjacent lot, the lot in question being Block 4, Lot 8, but that he does have an option on the lot; and the fee title owner of the lot indicated he would not like to have any portion of Lot 8 taken away from it and added onto Lot 9. Therefore, Mr. Miller is in to request a variance to be allowed to be within the 10-foot side lot requirement. Chairman Ridgeway questioned as to why he was in again applying for the Variance when, indeed, he indicated at the last Planning Commission meeting, August 14, 1984, meeting that he would obtain additional square footage needed from Lot 8 to accommodate and, thus, be in conformance. There being no publiC input, motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to grant a maximum 1.54 feet sideyard variance on the southwest portion of the under-construction 8-unit townhouse building with the condition that any future townhouses to be built on the R-2 lots maintain a 20-foot sideyard setback instead of the 10-foot sideyard setback. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - Variance Requests: 1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed. 2) To allow driveway access width in excess of the maximum 24 feet allowed. Applicant, Wendy'S. 1) zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to the gentlemen -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 from Wendy's and his sign company representative from Sign Crafters that the intent of the Ordinance through the interpretation of the zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission members is that the 32 feet maximum height is from the top of the road surface of the highway going over the freeway, that being at the top of the bridge. The gentleman from Sign Crafters indicated if it was 32 feet above the top of the driving surface at the bridge over the freeway that they would have no problem staying within 32 feet. Therefore, they would not need a Variance. 2) A discussion was also held on the possibility of driveway access widths in excess of 24 feet. Wendy's, at this time, depending on if the Planned Unit Development goes ahead as planned, would like additional driveway width to accommodate wider turning radius needed for semi-truck tractors and campers pulled behind vehiCles. The gentleman from Wendy'S indicated that they now would not need the additional driveway access width and that if they had to have driveways installed into their own property and not utilize a common driveway entrance off of the proposed Planned Unit Development, 24 feet would be sufficient for them and would not need a Variance. 7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Proposed Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg. Jim Powers was present with his Registered Land Surveyor, Dennis Taylor of Taylor Land Surveyors, and also Mr. Lee Nelson, representative from Wendy'S Family Restaurant corporation. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, questioned zoning Administrator Anderson if everything was in order for the Concept Plan as presented. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered that there are certa~n items that are missing from the Concept Plan before them, those being water and sewer plans as presented need additional footage added to the water and sewer pipe in the newly constructed road through the proposed Planned Unit Development; it would also need additional pipe size than the size indicated; it would also need cross sectional drawings of the manhole and the water hydrants proposed in the water and sewer construction; also City staff had questions as to the 1-foot outlot between the newly platted Sandberg Road extension through the Planned Unit Development and the next adjoining property owner, Monticello Ford. Two other questions were raised on two other outlots, those not having a building or building size allocated to those proposed outlots for any proposed use of those outlots. Other than that, City staff felt that all the items were addressed in the Concept Site Plan submitted before them. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, along with the other Planning Commission members present, Joyce DOWling, Richard Carlson, and Don Cochran, were very opposed to actually hearing the proposal for the concept Plan if everything wasn't in place as needed per Concept Stage -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 . . of the Planned Unit Development. That is per the requirement in a Planned Unit Development that everything has to be in order before approval or denial by Planning Commission and the City Council. Having an indication from Jim Powers' partner in the proposed Planned Unit Development that everything would be in order for this Planning Commission meeting from the last Planning Commission meeting held on August 14, 1984, Jim Powers countered that everything was in order except a few changes that Zoning Administrator Anderson and City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, had found in a meeting with Mr. Powers at 11:30 A.M., Tuesday, September 11, 1984. Mr. Powers indicated that there are three different firms that are involved with the Planned Unit Development, each of them specialists in different fields of development as so indicated on there. They had received promises that they would be to City staff by Thursday, September 6, at the latest and then only received portions of them Friday, September 7, and portions Monday, September 10, and the final portion Tuesday, September 11. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, reiterated that that is a developer's problem, not a City staff or Planning Commission problem and that, as a partner in the proposed development of the Planned Unit Development, it is his responsibility to coordinate between him and the people doing the work for him so it does arrive to City staff, Consulting Engineering, and Consulting Planning Firm on time for their review. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that City staff is recommending to Planning Commission members their approval of the Concept Stage of the Planned Unit Development with the conditions or revisions as mentioned earlier and that we feel the concept Plan stages of it are intact and of good design with the few exceptions that we have noted earlier. Commission members reiterated to the partner in the proposed Planned unit Development that they will not look at any future development stages of the proposed Planned unit Development until everything is in order, has been reviewed by City staff, Consulting Engineer, and Consulting Planning Firm and is recommended to them for their approval. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce DOWling, to approve the Concept Stage of the proposed Planned Unit Development, Plaza Partners, with the condition that all revisions of the City staff, Consulting Engineer, and the Consulting Planner be addressed in the Concept Stage of the Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. Also, as a directive motion, motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce DOWling, that the Planning Commission members as a Planning Commission body, direct City staff to work with the developers of the Planned Unit Development, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg, to inform them in writing and with their presence, any items that are needed before submitting the next stage of the Planned Unit Development, that being the Development Stage. Motion carried unanimously. . -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 . Additional Information Items A discussion was held on the next proposed tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission regular meeting in October. The regular meeting date, being the second Tuesday, would fall on the 9th. The first meeting of the Council would be on the 8th, but the 8th is a holiday, Columbus Day. The Council will be meeting on the 9th. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to meet on Wednesday, October 10, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:39 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~JtJf Gary derson Zoning Administrator . . -6-