Planning Commission Minutes 03-07-1989
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Richard carlson, cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McConnon.
Members Absent:
None.
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held February 7, 1989, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Public Hearing - A rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density
residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and members of the public the applicant's rezoning
request its relationship to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Jim Metcalf, partner in West Prairie partners, explained to
planning Commission members and members of the public that their request
to rezone the property is a joint venture with two adjoining property
owners, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Reed, and Mr. and Mrs. Fred Gille. Mr. Metcalf
indicated he met with City staff several times and also with members of
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to explain their rezoning request
and the total cost that would be involved with the acquisition of the
land, plus the demolition of the existing house and existing building of
Mr. Gille's, and some possible site cleanup from underground field
storage tanks on the Gille property.
Mr. Dan Reed, adjoining property owner to the West Prairie Partners'
property and also a co-applicant of the rezoning request, explained to
members of the public and the Planning commission that he would like to
see the property rezoned or the property could be redeveloped into
another use: or if the property could not be rezoned and the zoning
remains as is, he has a potential buyer to utilize the existing machine
shop on his property to be grandfathered in as a use of his property.
Concerns that were brought up from members of the public which were
present at the meeting were as follows:
1
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
.
* Is this rezoning request consistent with the rezoning which was
already done in 1986 on the property, and is it consistent with the
Monticello comprehensive Plan?
*
Possible depreciation of home values of neighboring properties in
this area if the rezoning is approved.
*
Why is the developer allowed to ask for rezoning without some type of
redevelopment plan?
* The total number of single family residential housing units and the
number of single family residential vacant lots in relationship to
the total number of multiple family units as they exist today has
exceeded the 45% ratio.
* There are 10 areas already existing in the city limits for some type
of multiple family housing, either in an R-3 (medium density
residential) or PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
* If there is substantial cost to cleanup the Gille site where the
underground tanks are existing, where are the findings that there are
contaminated soils which exist in the area of the underground storage
tanks?
.
*
Concerns with regards to liability if multiple family housing units
are constructed and once they are occupied if children would be
playing on the existing Monticello Country Club golf course.
* Questioned the adequacy of the 8-inch sewer line that is laid at a
minimal grade to handle any increase of usage to this line with some
tyPe of multiple family development as proposed.
* Since some of the new homes were built, the zoning has changed once
and is being proposed to be changed a second time.
* A signed petition was received from a member of the public signed by
residents in the affected area of the rezoning request.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
rezoning request. Comments raised from the planning Commission members
were as follows:
* Has the staff researched the actual percentage of multiple family
units in comparison to the number of single family units and single
family vacant lots?
* Questioned if there were any numbers known on the percentage of
vacancy which is occurring in our existing multiple family housing
units.
.
*
The property does need some type of sprucing up.
2
.
.
.
Planning commission Minutes - 3/7/89
* Has there been any research done to see if there is actually some
contaminated soil present in the underground fuel storage tank
facilities on the Gille property? Jeff O'Neill indicated that there
might be some potential City involvement if the zoning stayed R-2
(single and two family residential).
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan McConnon, to deny the rezoning
request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential) unplatted
residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). Motion carried
unanimously. Reason for denial: There already exists an oversaturation
of multiple family units in the city relative to single family units,
the developer has shown no plan for proposed use of the land; there
already exists sufficient land within the city for multiple family
development in R-3 (medium density residential) and PZM (performance zone
mixed) zoning; Chapter 21-0-5 of the City zoning Ordinance was not met.
4.
Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a daycare-group
nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no concrete curbing
around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping requirements.
Applicant, Peggy Hanawalt.
zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to members of the Planning
Commission and members of the public which were present the conditional
use request presented by the applicant, peggy Hanawalt. Zoning
Administrator, Gary Anderson, outlined the conditions which are attached
to the conditional use application under the R-2 (single and two family
residential) zoning. The applicant has demonstrated that the minimum
requirements would be met in numbers 1-7. Conditions number 8 and 9 will
be dealt with in her application process to the Department of Public
Welfare prior to building permit application.
Chairperson Richard carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Dave Anderson, partner in Century 21 Home Key Realty, was
present to explain to Planning Commission members the applicant's request
for no concrete curbing around the parking lot perimeter, no hard
surfacing of the parking lot, and no landscaping requirements. The
realtor indicated that there has been a considerable amount of money
expended to date to go through the process of licensing this proposed
daycare facility, let alone the equipment necessary to operate a daycare
facility.
Questions raised from the public dealt with why the applicant should need
a variance for the hard surfacing, the concrete curb and gutter around
the parking lot perimeter, and the landscaping requirements when we
already have a daycare facility which had to meet those minimum
requirements prior to it opening for business. The members of the public
had no objection to the actual daycare facility but were concerned about
the completion of the facility prior to it being ready for occupancy or
some sort of guarantee that within a certain period of time the hard
surfacing of the parking lot, the curb and gutter around its perimeter,
and the landscaping would be completed.
3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
conditional use and variance requests. Mr. Carlson then opened the
meeting for input from the planning Commission members. Questions were
raised by the Planning Commission members that 1) there is a need for
another daycare use within this community, and 2) the existing daycare
facility does already have a waiting list of people needing daycare uses
at this current facility.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Cindy Lemm,
seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the conditional use request to allow
a daycare-group nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential)
zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny the
variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no concrete
curbing around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The
applicant's failure to demonstrate a hardship other than monetary as
being their hardship.
5.
Consideration of preparing an amendment to the Monticello zoning
Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional use within a B-3
(highway business) Zone. Consider granting conditional use permit to
Monticello Auto Body and allow an auto body shop to operate at Lot 4,
Block 2, Sandberg South Addition. Applicant, Monticello Auto Body.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to planning
Commission members and members of the public Monticello Auto Body's
ordinance amendment request. Under the current text of the ordinance,
auto body shops are only allowed in an industrial type of zoning. Even
though the body shop is a service related type of business, the only area
where we allow these are in the industrial type of zoning. Even with its
business type use similar to other uses within "B" type zoning, as there
are many business type uses within our B-1, B-2, and B-3 zonings, how
would a proposed body shop look in relationship to an existing dental
clinic building just three lots away from the proposed site?
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. There being no input from the pUblic, he turned the meeting
over for any input from the planning Commission members. Input from the
planning Commission members was as follows:
*
WOuld you, Mr. Johnson, have any fuel dispensing performed on your
site? Mr. Johnson replied there would be no dispensing of fuels at
all.
*
How would you propose to handle the fumes which are dispensed from
your business? The fumes from painting done in the body shop are
filtered out through a filtering system which goes through a second
filtering system before entering the exterior of the building.
Mr. Johnson indicated he also intended to install charcoal filtering
as an additional process prior to dispensing of fumes to the outside
of the building.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
*
Do you, Mr. Johnson, own the property? Mr. Johnson responded that he
does have the property on a contingency subject to the approval of
his conditional use request.
*
The question was also raised regarding the possibility of creating a
special zone just to allow body shops and other types of automotive
related businesses within a new zone.
With no further input from the public, a motion was made by Dan Mcconnon,
seconded by Richard Martie, to deny preparing an ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional
use within a B-3 (highway business) zone; and to consider the possibility
of creating a new zone within B-3 (highway business) zoning to allow such
uses as auto body shops within them. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Public Hearing - A rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density
residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single and two family
residential). Applicant, Dan Frie.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members Mr. Frie's request in that he was not present at the
meeting. Mr. O'Neill indicated to planning Commission members and
members of the public Mr. Frie's request to down zone from R-3 (medium
density residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning.
The proposed down zoning to R-2 (single and two family residential) is
consistent with the existing zoning that is adjacent to the area that is
proposed to be rezoned.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
pUblic. There being no input from the public or the planning Commission
members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to
approve the rezoning request to rezone from R-3 (medium density
residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential). Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an institutional sign to be
larger than allowed by ordinance. Applicant, Monticello Country Club.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and members of the public the Monticello country
Club's request to allow an additional institutional sign. The definition
of the institutional sign is "A sign which identifies the name or the
name and other characteristics of public, semi-public, or private
institution on the site where the sign is located. This institution
shall include churches, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and other
non-profit and charitable organizations."
Chairperson Richard Carlson the opened the meeting for input from the
pUblic. Mr. Gar Holley, representing the Monticello country Club, was
present to explain the variance request to put up an institutional sign
near the entrance to the Monticello COuntry Club. They had no problem
5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
with the proposed location of the sign, even though the previous sign
which was taken down as part of the construction of the Floyd Markling
townhouses was up toward the road from where the proposed sign would be
located now to meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Floyd Markling indicated to planning Commission members that this is
not a charitable organization, that they do pay income taxes, therefore,
the Golf Course should not be allowed to have an institutional sign.
Markling went on to suggest that the sign be moved to a different
location which would best serve the entire Monticello Country Club.
With no further input from planning Commission members, motion was made
by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the variance
request. The motion carried unanimously. Reason for tabling: A
clarification from the City Attorney, Tom Hayes, as to whether or not the
Monticello Country club is a nonprofit corporation.
8.
Review sign ordinances used by various communities and discuss potential
amendments to the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, indicated to Planning
Commission members some information he had gathered from neighboring
communities and also some information that he had received from
representatives of the First National Bank that they had received from
other communities. The information received dealt with the amount of
sign height and sign area and number of pylon signs that would be allowed
in business areas and also in areas adjacent to the freeway.
Under the current text of our Sign Ordinance, in our business zoning
under the speed limit of 30 mph, we would allow a maximum sign height of
18 feet and a maximum square footage of 50 sq ft. Under the bonus for
being near the freeway, we would allow a maximum of 32 feet in height and
200 maximum sq ft of sign area. Other communities ranged from a low of
48 sq ft in business zoning away from the freeway to a maximum of
250 sq ft of sign area, with the maximum sign height from 18 feet to a
maximum of 50 feet, and additional sign square footage over 200 sq ft.
With no further information from the planning commission members, it was
their suggestion that Mr. O'Neill continue with his research and come up
with a possible sign ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing
for it at their next regularly scheduled meeting for April 4, 1989. Some
suggested recommendations would be to go up to 22 feet in height for the
maximum sign height and 100 sq ft for the maximum sign square footage in
business zoning off of the freeway, and with the areas next to the
freeway stick with 32 feet maximum height and the 200 sq ft of maximum
sign area; and that we go back to the total number of pylons that would
be allowed in any business type zoning be a maximum of one pylon sign per
lot.
6
.
.
.
Planning commission Minutes - 3/7/89
Additional Information Items
1. 1989 goals and membership: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the
Industrial Development Committee, and the Chamber of Commerce.
2. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing 1-2 (heavy
industrial) lot into two industrial lots. Applicant, Oakwood Industrial
Park partnership. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
3. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted
residential lot into two unplatted residential lots. Applicant, West
prairie Partners. Council action: Approved as per planning Commission
recommendation.
4. Request for final plat review of a proposed new subdivision plat.
Applicant, Charles Ritze. Cbuncil action: Approved as per planning
Commission recommendation.
5. Consensus of the planning Commission members was to set the next meeting
date for the Monticello planning Commission meeting for April 4, 1989,
7:30 p.m.
6. Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Gary son
zoning Administrator
7