Planning Commission Minutes 11-06-1996
.
.
.
MINUfES
REGULAR MEETING ~ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 6, 1996 ~ 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod
Dragsten
Staff Present:
Steve Grittman, Gary Anderson, Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie
Koropchak
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Frie made a
note that staff members Jeff O'Neill and Wanda Kraemer were attending a
seminar and would not be present this evening.
2. Approval of minutes of the re~ar meeting held October 1, 1996.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1, 1996,
MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. Motion passed unanimously.
3.
Consideration of adding item8 to the agenda.
Chairman Frie asked about the status of the County's reaction to parking
restrictions on Broadway as a follow-up to last meeting's discussion of garage
sale events. Steve Grittman, City Planner, responded that no information
was available for tonight's meeting. Chairman Frie requested that staff have
an update available for the Commission's next meeting.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, requested that the Commission consider
adding one item to the agenda, the consideration of a resolution finding the
modified Redevelopment Plan for the Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-21 to be consistent with
the development plans of the city. Chairman Frie added this as agenda item
I1.b.
4. Citizens Comments.
There were no citizens comments.
Page 1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
5.
Public Hearin~ -- Consideration of a reQUest for an amendment to a
conditional use permit which would allow expansion and conversion of one
manual car wash stall to an automated stall. Location is Lot 3, Block 1,
Macarlund Plaza. Applicant, Investors Toe:ether.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the request of Investors Together
for a conditional use permit amendment to allow the conversion of a manual,
self-service car wash stall to an automated stall. Grittman noted that the
proposal consists of a small addition to the rear portion of the existing facility
which would lengthen the stall in question. There are no conflicts with
zoning performance standards, and the land use will remain the same. The
primary issue would be one of intensification of the current use, and whether
the Planning Commission believed this to be of concern for the site.
Grittman reported that the staff information presented two alternative
actions for Planning Commission consideration. Approval, if granted, should
incorporate the 18 conditions that were imposed by the original conditional
use permit in 1990. In addition, the Planning Commission should consider a
requirement that the curb cut between the subject property and the adjoining
Total Mart property be closed. This latter recommendation is made to deter
traffic from cutting through the car wash site from the service road to the
Total Mart, and to permit the full use of the maximum number of stacking
spaces for the car wash.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, and asked for comments from the
public. Noting none, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Ken Schwartz, representative of Investors Together, indicated that the
reason for the request was to permit the addition of a dryer for the automatic
stall. In response to a question from Gary Anderson, Building Official,
Schwartz indicated that compliance with the conditions listed on the current
permit were no problem for the property owners, including the need to keep
rear doors closed which face the residential areas to the north.
Chairman Frie asked whether there would be any concern over congestion on
the site due to the expansion, and what effect the closing of the curb cut
would have on operations.
Dean Hoglund of Investors Together responded that the addition of the new
automatic wash should have the effect of minimizing congestion by allowing
more cars to be washed in less time than the current manual wash bays
allow. Schwartz indicated that the applicants have considered closing the
curb cut themselves in order to end the traffic short cut and retain the
stacking spaces.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
.
Chairman Frie raised a concern over too many cars using the site and
potential remedies for congestion. This concern was also raised by
Commissioner Dragsten, who suggested that the curb cut closing need not be
a condition placed by the City, but rather a step taken by the property
owners if they see fit. Commissioner Dragsten stated that he believed the
congestion problem to be self-regulating in that as the stacking spaces fill up,
potential customers will decide against waiting in line.
Schwartz agreed and stated that they had never seen the traffic so bad as to
cause problems with the service road. Schwartz indicated that there was
room to accommodate approximately seven cars stacked up, with one in the
wash. The current automatic bay can cycle through one car wash in an
average of four minutes.
Building Official Anderson raised the concern that there may be two cars
leaving the automatic bays at the same time, causing a problem with exiting.
.
Schwartz responded by stating that the two automatic washes were timed
differently, and such a condition would immediately change with the next
customers due to the staggered wash cycles. In response to a question about
drying, Schwartz indicated that there would be room for cars leaving the
facility to park along the west property line, although few automatic
customers hand-dry their vehicles in addition to the dryer in the automatic
bay.
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INVESTORS
TOGETHER FOR THE EXPANSION CONVERSION OF ONE MANUAL
CAR WASH STALL TO AN AUTOMATED WASH BAY, BASED UPON A
FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL CAR WASH STALL AND
ASSOCIATED VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WILL NOT RESULT IN A
NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE WHICH IT IS
LOCATED, AND IS THEREFOR CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA. THE MOTION WAS MADE
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS NOTED IN THE EXISTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON 4/9/90.
.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
.
2.
CLOSING OF THE CURB CUT BETWEEN THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT TOTAL MART PROPERTY
WOULD BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERS.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Public Hearin~ -- Consideration of a reQ.uest for a 5-ft variance to the 30-ft
buildin~ setback reQ.uirement. Applicant, David Peterson/Dave Peterson's
Monticello Ford.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the request of Monticello Ford to
expand their current facility between Sandberg Road and Highway 25.
Grittman noted that the facility will eventually need a conditional use permit
to actually undertake the project, but that this request is being made to
resolve the limits of the building area on the west side of the property. The
proposed variance is for a setback encroachment of 5 ft off of the required
setback of 30 ft toward Sandberg Road.
.
Grittman noted that the staff report cites a number of circumstances which
are unique to the Ford property and could be used as criteria for approval of
the variance. These include the shape of the property, and the placement of
the existing building, make it difficult to expand the facility in a way which
is functionally feasible for the dealership's internal operations. In addition,
Grittman noted that the property is surrounded by roadways on three sides.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Steve Johnson, representing Monticello Ford, addressed the Planning
Commission. Johnson stated that the current project was being pursued in
order to prepare the facility for business in the future. Johnson indicated
that the site plan, with the setback encroachment, was designed by Ford
Motor Co. architects and was deemed to be necessary to allow the site to
properly function and expand in size. Johnson exhibited a rendering of the
proposed building and stated that construction was scheduled to commence
sometime in 1997.
Chairman Frie inquired as to the property's compliance with the recent
conditional use permit. Commissioner Dragsten responded that certain
conditions of the 1995 proposal were waived in anticipation of the current
project.
.
In response to Chairman Frie's question, Johnson indicated that new signage
would be proposed and that it would be in conformance with the City's sign
regulations.
Page 4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
Chairman Frie asked for public comment, and receiving none, closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Carlson noted that the property had completed extensive
drainage control improvements as a part of the 1995 project.
Commissioner Bogart expressed concern over the existence of a hardship
upon which the Commission could approve the variance. Bogart asked about
the possibility that the Sandberg Road side could be considered a side yard,
and thus qualify for a 20-ft setback instead of requiring the variance.
Grittman responded that there may be concern that due to future street
improvements related to the Chelsea Road project, the yard in question may
not always be a side yard. The clearest answer would be to utilize the
variance approach.
In response to Commissioner Carlson's question as to circulation around the
building in the area of the setback encroachment, Johnson responded that
there would continue to be adequate room for circulation in the area.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, COMBINED
WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ROADS ON THREE SIDES, THE LOCATION
OF THE BUILDING ON THE LOT, THE NATURE OF THE USE, THE
CONTINUED POSSIBILITY OF CIRCULATION AROUND THE BUILDING
WITHOUT ROAD ACCESS FROM SANDBERG ROAD, AND THAT
CONTINUED REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS DEPENDENT
UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.
The motion passed unanimously.
7.
Public Hearing -- Consideration of a reqp.est for a 7-ft variance to the 10-ft
buildin~ separation req.uirement between principal and accessory buildings.
Location is Lot 4, Block il, The Meadows. Applicant Ryan Fruth.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the proposal to allow the
placement of an accessory building 3 ft from a single family residence at 222
Crocus Lane. Grittman explained that the accessory building has already
been constructed and violates the Zoning Ordinance's required 10-ft building
separation requirements. The applicant's variance request must be judged
based upon the hardship and uniqueness requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
.
Grittman described the three alternative actions which were presented to the
Planning Commission by the staff. These included approval based upon a
finding of hardship, denial based upon a finding of no hardship, and
modification of the ordinance language to allow the types of proposals
requested by the applicant.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Applicant Ryan Fruth described the structure and his intent to use it to store
his snowmobile near his house. Fruth stated that he intentionally designed
the building to look like his existing home.
There being no other public in attendance on this matter, Chairman Frie
closed the public hearing.
.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility that the building could be moved
to another conforming location on the lot, including to the rear or to the side.
Building Official Gary Anderson suggested that adequate room existed on
the side to move the building away from the house to meet both the 10-ft
building separation and 10-ft side yard setbacks. Applicant Fruth suggested
that this would not be satisfactory aesthetically.
Commissioner Dragsten asked if the building could be attached. Anderson
stated that it was built on "skids" and would need to be built on full frost
footings to be attached to the main house.
Commissioner Bogart asked about the rationale behind the 10-ft separation.
Anderson explained that the fire code was set up to require 10-ft building
separation, whether on the same lot or across lot lines. Fruth noted that the
3-ft separation was adequate to allow him to paint the building and to make
better utilization of the lot.
Further discussion by the Commission suggested that it was more important
to allow for the indoor storage of materials and equipment, and in cases of
single car garages (as with this property) it may be appropriate. However,
there was concern over the lack of apparent hardship to justify the variance.
Eric Bondhus, a member of the audience, suggested that such small
buildings should be exempt from zoning restrictions.
.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO TABLE ACTION ON THE FRUTH
VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, PENDING STAFF'S PREPARATION OF A
DRAFT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED SEPARATION OF
Page 6
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON SUCH AN AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
The motion passed unanimously.
8. Public Hearin~ n Consideration of a request for a 3-ft variance to the 3-ft
driveway setback requirement. Applicant, Robert Rolf.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the request of Robert Rolf for a
variance which would allow the paving of the space between driveways which
serve the two halves of a twinhome structure in the River Mill area.
Grittman explained that the River Mill subdivision was developed with this
issue in mind, and a significant level of discussion with the developer
resulted in adherence to the City's standard on driveway separation for green
space and other functional reasons. It was noted that the driveway had
already been installed in the manner violating the ordinance. Grittman
described the alternatives in the staff report, including approval, denial, and
combination of the lots into a single parcel, thereby eliminating the setback
violation.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Robert Rolf, the applicant, stated that he could not combine the two lots due
to separate mortgages. Rolf noted that due to the plan of the building, only a
4-ft separation was practicable, and it was his belief that no grass would
grow in the space between driveways.
There being no public comment, Chairman Frie closed the hearing.
Commissioner Carlson noted the level of discussion on this issue at the time
of development and the general agreement that the green space in this area
was considered an essential part of the plan.
Rolf stated that it was he, and not the developer, who supervised the
installation of the blacktop driveways.
Commissioner Bogart stated that a prior development had resulted in the
City's interest in maintaining the driveway separation, including the need to
separate neighbors vehicles, snow storage, and other reasons.
Chainnan Frie suggested that not just grass need be placed in the "green"
space. Grittman reported that it was common for trees and shrubs and rock
mulch to be used in addition to, or instead of, grass.
Page 7
.
.
.
~, ,.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR ELIMINATION OF THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK ON THE ROLF
TWINHOME BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO
IDENTIFIABLE HARDSHIP TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSAL.
Motion passed unanimously.
9. Public Hearing -- Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-2 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance ~overning placement offences within traffic
sight Hnes. Applicant, City of Monticello Plannin~ Commission.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported on the proposal to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to limit fences and plantings over 3 ft in height in the "visibility
area" at the intersection of public streets. Grittman noted that the current
ordinance applies only to the intersection of a street and a railroad.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Steve Johnson, a member of the audience, raised a concern over the lack of
distinguishing between types of roadways and widths of rights-of-way. He
identified areas along Highway 75 which, although heavily planted in the
25- ft visibility area, created no hazard due to the wide right-of-way available
for cars to see oncoming traffic. Grittman responded that the ordinance was
typically applied when visibility was obstructed and would not likely create a
concern in other situations, even if they were in technical violation of the
ordinance.
Commissioner Bogart suggested that strict adherence to the proposed
ordinance would cause a big impact in several areas, and he could not
support an ordinance which created a number of non-conforming situations
as did this one. Bogart suggested that a different draft should be developed
which includes attention to visibility in hazardous areas, perhaps using
opacity of the obstruction as one criterion.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
CARLSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE ACTION
ON THE FENCE ORDINANCE TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO DEVELOP A
MORE TAILORED ORDINANCE.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
.
10. Consideration of callin~ for a public hearing' on a com.prehensive plan
amendment identifying growth areas on the Sherburne County border of the
~
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission that a 200-acre
development of approximately 80 rural lots had been proposed for the
Sherburne County side of the Mississippi River across from the city of
Monticello. Grittman noted that such a development could have numerous
impacts for the City and the larger community and encouraged the City to
become involved in the processing of this development. Grittman laid out
three options for the City in this regard, including annexation and
amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the area, active
participation in the plat process, including involvement in the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, or passive involvement and
monitoring of the development's progress in Sherburne County.
.
Michael Schroeder, a consultant to the Monticello Community Partners,
discussed the downtown impacts which may occur as a result of the
development, including the compromising of the community's desire for a
compact downtown area, and a compact development pattern generally.
Schroeder noted that the City's objective of a small town environment could
be more difficult with rural residential subdivisions developed in such areas.
Schroeder also emphasized that there are many more parcels in the area
which could have just as significant an impact and encouraged the
annexation approach to manage growth in these areas.
Commissioner Bogart noted that his firm was involved in the planning for
this subdivision, and that the developer was following a "two-track"
approach, hoping to get positive feedback from the City on inclusion in the
City's utility service area. Concerns about the cost of such development, and
possible changes in Sherburne County's development processing, led them to
pursue this plat arrangement in this way.
Commissioner Dragsten questioned the feasibility of the development due to
City sewer and water issues. Grittman noted that the City's intent would be
to extend services for a more urban type of development, but that at this
time, reliable cost estimates were not available.
.
Commissioner Carlson noted that there are several parcels between this
parcel and the bridge, suggesting that the Municipal Board would not likely
approve an annexation which included only the more remote parcel. Carlson
suggested that it would be important to know the scope of the entire
development area, not just this specific parcel.
Page 9
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
The Commission discussed the options, feeling that aggressive annexation
may not appropriate at this time, but stating that the issues raised by the
development suggested that active involvement would be important for the
City.
Steve Johnson, a member of the audience, suggested that the City consider a
dual track approach including both an annexation approach and a
participatory approach.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO WORK WITH
THE DEVELOPER ON THE SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND OTHER CITY
ISSUES, AND ENCOURAGING ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE
PLATTING PROCESS WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. THE MOTION
FURTHER DIRECTS STAFF TO MONITOR THE NEED FOR
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS AND AMENDMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS APPROPRIATE.
Motion passed unanimously.
II.a. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on ordinance amendments
governing radio/cell phone communication towers.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission on the increasing
demand for cellular antenna tower construction due to increasing cellular
usage and new technology which has resulted in the issuance of new FCC
licences. Grittman recommended that the Commission call for a public
hearing to consider amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance which would
permit the City to adequately regulate the construction of such towers.
The Commission discussed the issue generally, including the need to assure
greater service in the Monticello area.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY BOGART,
TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY'S ORDINANCES REGULATING RADIO/CELL PHONE
COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96
11.b. Consideration to adopt a resolution findin~ the modified redevelopment Plan
for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the TIF Plan for
TIF District No 1-21 to be consistent with the plans of the City.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission that the proposed
resolution was a statutory requirement for the City to utilize Tax Increment
Financing for the proposed project, the expansion of Lake Tool, a local plastic
injection mold company.
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, explained the modification
of the TIF and Redevelopment plans, as well as the use of funds in the
district. Koropchak noted that the Estimated Minimum Value of the project
was actually $270,000 with an annual Estimated Captured Tax Capacity of
$10,190, rather than the lower amounts reported in her staff report. She also
noted that the assistance to the developer will be $37,900 for land write-
down and site improvements. The $110,000 mentioned in the plan is the
maximized increment from the district.
In response to a question from Chairman Frie, Eric Bondhus, representative
of the developer, stated that they hired locally and encouraged new hires to
live in the community.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FINDING
THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TIF PLAN
FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1.21 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS OF
THE CITY. SEE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-3.
Motion passed unanimously.
12. Adjournment.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO ADJOURN.
There being no other business, Chairman Frie declared the meeting
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steve Grittman, City Planner
Page 11