Loading...
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