Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-01-2005 . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDA V, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 8:00 PM Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz Commissioners Absent: Sandy Suchy Council Liaison Present: Glen Posusta Staff Present: Fred Patch, Angela Schumann, and Steve Grittman - NAC I. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Suchy and Deputy City Administrator O'Neill. . 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday. October 4t\ 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4th, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Introduction of new city staff. Chairman Frie noted that the introductions of new City staff would be tabled to the December meeting due to the special time of the November meeting. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello . Grittman explained that a meeting ofthe open and outdoor storage ad hoc committee had been scheduled for Tuesday, November 8th, to continue the discussion as previously requested by the Commission. Chairman Frie inquired about the time of the meeting. Grittman replied that the meeting would be . held at 2:30. Chari man Frie asked if staff would recommend that the Commission be in attendance. Grittman stated that while staff did not have a particular reeommcndation, it is beneficial for members to hear thc discussion themselves. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO TIlE JANUARY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa Request for rezoning from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-I A (Single-Family Residential). Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation Grittman provided the statl report, explaining that the rezoning action represents the last piece of platting process. Typically, the final rezoning of a parcel is approved by the City Council concurrent with the approval of the final plat for thc appropriate phase. Grittman stated that the rezoning is from A-O to R-IA and noted that ifthe plat is in conformance with that zoning designation. Dragsten asked if, in that case, it would make sense to withhold the rczoning by Council until the final plat. Schumann indicated that the final plat for thc 4th Addition had already been approved. She stated that the rezoning for the entire plat of Carlisle Village was previously considered by the Commission as part of the original preliminary planning process. However, due to an incorrect legal description of the parcel on the original notice, the Planning Commission is asked to open the appropriate public hearing and provide a recommendation. . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. llearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie asked Council member Posusta to react to any concerns about drainage and erosion control, as that had been an item mentioned in previous Council meetings related to this plat. Frie asked if they would influence the decision. Posusta noted that thc erosion issues were in a diffcrent area of the plat. Posusta noted that the Council's concerns had to do with the condition ofthe development. Posusta asked Patch to provide greater detail on that item. Patch updated the Commission, providing history regarding Carlisle Village. Patch explained that there is clay soil on the site and as it becomes saturated, it becomes difficult to clean. He also noted that the R-2A sites are tight and difficult to work in. Residents living in the development are also affected by this problem. Patch indicated that the Building Department is changing the way that it is handling erosion control; becoming much more restrictive in terms of builder requirenlents. Patch commented that there are 10 stop work orders out, which requirc that erosion control to be in order prior to fnrther construction. The developer is also being held to more stringent requirements. Frie indicated that as a Council member had noted the state of the development, he wanted to bring the Planning Conlll1ission up-to-date. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING TlIA T THE REZONING MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2 . 8. Consideration ofa Request for rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Business). Applicant: Kean of Monticello Grittman provided an overview of the staff report, discussing the numerous sites involved in the rezoning. Grittman noted a correction on the acreage amount from what had been listed in the staff report. The area is currently zoned PZM and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to B-3, which is intended to allow lllore motor-vehicle oriented activities. Grittman noted October's consideration of rezoning for the MMC parcel and the subsequent recommendation to deny. Grittman explained the differing purposes of the two districts. He stated that staffs concern is that in consideration of the surrounding uses, it seems as though the PZM designation is the best district for this property. Grittman stated that it is staff s view that the PZM zoning district, if not designed for these areas, is certain Iy appropriate for these types of areas. Grittman stated that it is the applicant's intent to establish an automobile service use on the site, which is not allowed as either a permitted use or by CUP in a PZM. However, Grittman noted that there is an overlap in some types of uses between the two districts. For example, most retail strip center uses would be allowed by CUP in a PZM. In summary, primarily based on the purpose statements for the two districts, Grittman said that stan believes the current zoning designation is appropriate and does not recommend the rezoning requested. Hilgart asked whether the automobile sales use currently on-site was grandfathered in. Grittman confirmed it had been there for some time. Grittman stated that he believed it may have pre-dated the PZM district . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Maxine Lilja, 149 Riverview Drive, a resident of the townhouses on Riverview Drive, addressed the Commission. She asked Grittman to explain further what a conditional use permit would allow. Grittman and Posusta responded that CUP uses could be allowed under cel1ain conditions. Dean Iloglund and Ken Schwartz, representing Kean of Monticello, spoke to the Commission. Hoglund stated that they have a business who would like to purchase a property within the proposed rezoning area to build a retail strip center. Hoglund indicated that one ofthe uses would be a tire store. Hoglund referred to some of the site's previous uses up unti I about 1987. Hoglund stated that since that time, it has been used car sales. Hoglund explained that when they built the townhouses, they were built facing north, away from the automobile sales use. The attached garages for the units, as well as detached garages, separate the two land uses. Hoglund indicated that those create what he thinks is a good buffer. In fact, Hoglund indicated that the car wash and convenience store may be more intense than what the prospective buyer would like to build. Hoglund stated that he feels that B-3 is the proper zoning with new interchange and traffic light. Frie asked floglund to clarify what parcels would be included in the request for rezoning, noting the letter of support from the bank. Frie asked ifthe intent is to rezone over 6 acres. I loglund confirmed that acreage. . Lilja asked the applicants to explain what area would be converted to an autocenter. Schwartz stated that it would be the used car lot and where the big white house is. Lilja asked about entrances and exits to the site, noting it is already a high traffic area. )Ioglund stated that the proposed uses would not be as high traffic as the convenience store or car .., .J . wash. Lilja then asked if the service road would stay and be used as the site entrance. Grittman confirmed. Lilja stated that the garage shouldn't be considered a buffer, as they do not belong to the applicants. Hoglund noted that they would not be used to meet the buffer yard rcquirement. Lilja asked about buffer yard requirements. Frie clarified that if the rezone were approved, it would call for extensive buffering between the uses which could include berms, shrubs, and trees. Lilja asked if it would include fences. Frie stated that it may. Frie asked Hoglund if the used car lot would be removed. Hoglund confirmed. Frie noted that there is a concern that there are too many cars on the lot currently, in violation of what was approvcd. Frie stated he believe twenty cars were approved. Frie asked if the house would be removed. Hoglund confirmed that it would be. Frie stated that if the rezoning were approved, the house removed and the auto sales ceased, there is no guarantec that the proposed tire sales use would occur. Hoglund noted that an application to allow the lube had been requested and denied prcviously. Frie stated that it seems that the request is being made to accommodate the auto repair facility. Hoglund and Schwartz confirmed. Walter Albold, 149 Riverview Drive, Unit I, noted that this change would also allow rcstaurants. Oragsten commented that restaurants would also be allowed in a PZM. Dragsten explained that there would be a process to follow for any conditional use permit, and even if the applicants did not need a CUP. Lilja asked if there arc differences between auto repair and other uses in terms of the districts. Grittman explained that in the B-3, the tire sales and repair use would be allowed by CUP. It would not be allowed in the PZM at all. . Fric stated that the applicants are aware that full site plans for the proposed usc would need to be submitted, even if rezoned. Scott Zierden, 220 Mississippi Drivc, inquired whether the applicants could turn the car wash into a tire sales facility. Hoglund clarified that their prospective buyer is looking at building a retail strip center with the tire store as one user. Zierden asked whethcr the existing tree line would stay. Schwartz stated that they arc a natural buffer and would stay. Schwartz stated that outside of residential area to the north, when looking at the 6 acre site, one can make a case that it already fits B-3 better than PZM with what is there or proposed. Frie asked about the MMC property zoning. Grittman notcd that they arc coming back for a rezoning request. Lilja commented that it seems likc there is a lot of pressure to rezone for one potential buyer. Hoglund notcd that the proposed building would bc located close to Highway 75 with a largc rear setback. Zierdcn commentcd on childrcn in the area, noting that incrcased traffic would be a safety factor. Zierdel1 conceded to the property owner's right to be in business, but commentcd safety. Zierden statcd that the frontage road is not very well paved and is narrow. Posusta noted that fronting busincsses would need to pay for that. Grittman clarified thc frontage road is Hart Boulcvard. Hearing no fLll1her comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . lIilgart askcd what the reasoning is to rezone the gas station area. Grittlnan stated that the whole arc a was considered, cluc to the fact that if one parcel was rezoned, it could be spot- zoning. Hilgart stated that this request seems similar to the B-3 rcquest from MMC. 4 . Commenting on the potential for higher traffic, Hilgart stated that he is hesitant to allow B-3. Frie noted that the City would have more control ifthey left it PZM. Hilgart stated that in order to allow the tire use within the PZM, the City would have to go back and indicate that auto sales would be allowed in a PZM. Grittman confirmed, stating that the applicants could instead seek an amendment to the ordinance to allow that type of use within a PZM. Hilgart stated he was more open to that idea. Dragsten commented on the staff report listing comparable uses between the two districts, noting that most B-3 uses would blend well to the area, with the exception of perhaps hotels and motels. He cited that at the last meeting, the Commission recommended B-4 rezoning next to St. Ben's, and that was close to residential. Dragsten also referred to the Ryan retail site directly across Highway 75. Frie asked Dragsten's opinion of rezoning such a small site. Dragsten stated that his belief is that makes more sense to rezone. Spartz indicated that he was concerned about rezoning the entire 6 acres. Eventually, this area may be more conducive to B-3 with the new development. However, he is concerned about traffic on the service road. Spartz stated that he would rather look at it on a ease-by- case through the conditional use process. Posusta referred to the citizen's comments. Posusta stated that the lay ofthe land will dictate that the use will not be pushed back any further than it needs to be. In regards to redoing the road, the businesses would pay for the majority ofthe upgrade, ifnot all of the road. . Frie asked Grittman whether when staff presented its original recommendation, was it based on the 3.1 or 6 acres. Grittman stated that his original understanding was based on the 3.1 acres. Frie asked Grittman if he would retract his recommendation against rezoning based on a larger area. Grittman stated that he would not, as the concern is still the proximity to residential neighborhoods. For example, on the tire and battery use, the largest problem is air wrenches, and tools, which are a noise issue. Frie asked how many townhouses or condos are in the area. Lilja stated that this request would affect 30 units. Frie asked if the residents present are speaking for themsclves or for all residents. Lilja stated that they have notified residents by letter and stated that she did not find anyone in f~lvor ofthese changes. They all think this type of operation also entails large delivery trucks, and constant traffic. Lilja stated that she believes that the rezoning would create a busier area than the current use. Frie asked if residents are concerned about the rezoning itself or what is proposed to go in. Residents stated that their concern is what is proposed to go in. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN '1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OJ;' THE REZONING FROM PZM TO B-3, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED B-3 IIIGHWA Y BUSINESS DISTRICT, IS THE MOST SUITABLE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE SITE. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. Chairman Frie stated that the reason he did not second the motion was due to the likelihood of a 2-2 vote. Dragsten noted again the rezoning near St. Henry's as a similar case. . Hilgart stated that he doesn't have a problenl with a tire store, but he does with a potential hotel/motel and perhaps even a restaurant, which would potentially create more traffic. 5 Frie asked about the proeess for permitted uses. Grittman confirmed that permitted used go to City staff to confirm zoning, and then are subject only to building permit. . Frie noted that with the PZM, there is more flexibility and more control for the Commission. Frie inquired about an amendment to the distriet. Grittman noted that another public hearing would be needed for that request. Hoglund suggested continuing until 5th Commissioner was available. Schwartz asked if they could table. Frie contirmed that they could do so. Patch noted that the applicants could apply for an amendment to PZM, so both could be held at next meeting. Lilja stated that it seems as though Commission is trying to enable this use. Dragsten stated that someth ing is going to happen on that property as a matter of econom ics. Lilja commented that it doesn't appear to matter that 30 residents are opposed. Dragsten noted the value of land and stated that the applicants are looking to change the land use to accommodate the value of the property. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUEST TO THE DECEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Posusta commented that because of uses across Highway 75, the property taxes for these parcels will increase, forcing this type of development. . 9. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. . 6