Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-02-2003 . . . Planning COlllmission Minutes 09/02/03 MINlJ'n:S REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - September 2, 2003 6:00 P.M. Memhers: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Lloyd Hilgart Jeff O'Neill and Steve Grittman Ahsent: Staff: I. Call to order Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum, noting the absence ofComll1issioner Hilgart, Building OHicial Patch, and Deputy City Administrator O'Neill. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held August 5, 2003 A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICI-IARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED 'llIE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b-12Proval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meetinghelg.h..ug!!.~t 25,2003. Chair Frie noted the incorrect date on the special meeting minutes, there were no other corrections. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICl-IARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINlJ'n-:S ()F TilE AUGUST 25, 2003 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITlI CORRECTION ON DATE OF AGENDA. ROD DRACTSTEN SECONDED Tl-TE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lINANIMOUSL Y. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chair Frie advised that due to the length of the agenda, the Planning Commission would not be addressing additional items at this meeting. He did note however, that the November 4, 2003 Planning Commission meeting would need to be discussed due to a conflict with local School Board elections on that date. This will be di scussed at the end of the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fiJr an interim use permit allowing outside storage as a principal use in an 1-2 zoning district. Applicant: Jay MorrelllJME of Monticello -1- . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/03 Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report and stated ordinance requirements that specifically relate to the interim use permit in the 1-2 district, advising that this property is already being used for storage. He advised that staff determined an initial period of 5 years for the length of the interim use permit, as well as noting the 15 conditions which the appl icant would need to comply with if approved. Grittman advised that an updated site plan had been provided to staff today as well. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Morrell, 140 I Fallon Ave, wished to discuss the items in the conditions listed in the staff report. Regarding condition I, he asked that the city notify him prior to the permit expiring and (i-rittman stated there would be a written agreement between he and the city as well. Condition 3 - Morrell requested a variance from prohibiting parking of automobiles, advising that this is a paved lot and he would like to continue parking on that site. Condition 4 - There is currently a recycled concrete surface on this site, which he felt the city would approve of. Condition 5 - He advised there are 2 berms listed on thc plan, both blocking total visibility to thc north and south; thcrc arc also trees and a fence; and thc west side of the lot has a 6 ft. high concrcte fence for screening. Condition 7 - He did not feel this was necessary as thcy have a retention pond which serves the entire 10 acre parccl. Conditions 8 and 9 - He feels they arc already in compliance. Condition 10 - they do not plan to light this site. Condition 13 He was concerned with not bcing ahle to park unliccnscd trucks as they are allowed to removc licenses throughout the calendar year, further explaining that they purchase vchicles that may not bc licensed or llsed immediately if they arc not needed at the time. He also statcd hc has no junk on that property. Condition 14 - He again stated that they were in compliance, as stated in condition 5. Finally, in regard to condition 15 - he is not aware of any nuisance activities. Chair Frie asked Grittnlan to respond to thc COlnments by Morrell, specillcally in rcgard to condition 13, and asked if a vehicle necded to be licensed rcgardless or its age. Grittman stated that part of the ordinance defincs junk vehiclcs as unlicensed vehicles, however he felt that it"this was storage, it would be at thc Planning Commission's discretion. Fric askcd if there were vehicles currently on thc site that wcre unlicensed and Morrell stated several, all operable, just not in use at this time. . Chair r'rie then closed the public hearing. 'fhere was further discussion rcgarding the prohihiting of parking and Morrell again statcd that he is leasing to a business that currently parks on that site, and the parking is fi)J' his employccs as well as tcnants. Frie then addresscd the site plan submittcd to them this evcning and noted it looked like the surface was paved, which it was. Dragsten asked about the lighting and Morrell statcd thcy do not intend to put up I ighting, although there is lighting at the 140 I fallon Ave. building, but statcd that should not be part of this discussion. Dragsten further stated that it was his understanding there has been correspondence in writing back and forth betwecn thc city and the applicant, addrcssing lighting and othcr issues, and fclt this was the time to address them. Grittman advised that the applicant wished to have this request dealt with separately, although Dragsten still felt it should he addressed at this time as it is part of the conditions for approval. Grittman statcd that was true. Fric asked Morrell to explain thc rationalc, or elaborate why he operated on this property without a permit for such a long period of time. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02103 Morrell stated that at that time, his understanding was that ifhe owned the property next to this parcel he would not need a permit. He ultimately traded a parcel at that time to be adjacent to the site. Frie stated with that in mind, if approved and for the record, could Morrell live with the 15 conditions as stated and Morrell advised yes, with the exeeption of conditions 3, 13, and 7. Frie then asked Grittman to respond to the drainage comment in condition 7 and he stated that it is a typical requirement in these eases to have the City Engineer review and comment. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE INTERIUM USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCI,: WrrH THE SPECIFIC AND GI':NERAL STANDARDS OF T'IIE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING A TERM OF FIVE YEARS DOCUMEN'rED BY A SKi-NED ACiREEMENTBETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT, AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXIIIBIT Z, OMITTING CONDITIONS 3 AND 7. SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TillS PLAN WOUI)) BE NECESSARY TO SI lOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. If THE APPLICANT EXPECTS TO IIA VE ANY OF THESE STANDARDS FORGIVEN, A VARIANCE APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PI ,ANNING STAff IS NOT AWARE OF CONDITIONS ON THE SITE THAT WOULD SUPPORT VARIANCE APPROVAL. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TilE MOTION. MCYflON CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Morrell then asked if an agreement would be entered into and it was noted that it would be. 6. Continued Public Hearin12 - Consideration of request for a simple subdivisioll to _cre;lte l~YQ city lots, and cOlJ~j~leration of a variance tQJhe rear yard setba"~lc Appl icant: Kathleen ~i(lqtb,iIT City Planner Steve Clriuman provided the report sUIling that prcviously staff had concerns that another lot may not be buildable with the standards of the Wild & Scenic Act. In reviewing the revised site plan, it appears that the lots would meet the requirements, with the exception of the top corner of the second lot, or new site location, which would need to be "trimmed off' to (neet the 50 n. setback for the OHW standards. The buildable area would be a hit smaller than what is shown on the plan, but would meet standards. Stall is recommending approval of the subdivision, however they do not believe that the variancc is justified. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Kathleen Gauthier, applicant, advised that she wants to split the lot in order to sell the lot. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAl, OF A SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE FOLl,OWING: THE CREATION OF TWO I,C)lS WITH NEW LOT AREAS OF MORE TIIAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET wrn IIN THE SHORELAND AREA OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON A FINDING THAT TI-IE SIJBDIVISION IS -:J- . Planning Cornrnission Minutes 09/02/03 CONSISTEN'r WITH THE REQIJ/EMENTS OF THE CITY'S ZONING AND SUBDIVISION RECiULA TIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCI I PARCEL,S. RICI lARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO UNIQUE HARDSHIP EXISTS, AND THAT THE LOT MAY BE SUBDIVIDED AND BUILT ON WITHOUT A VARIANCE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TI-TE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Continued Public lIearing - Considcration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to_allow construction5l[a Wrage. Applicant: David Kranz City Planner Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting that the applicant is wishing to build a garage Hush to his existing garage, which would encroach within 6 ft. ofthe ROW. The expansion is to store a motor home. (i-rittman advised that a garage eould be constructed without a variance, although not to the applicant's expectations. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. David Kranz, 743 W. Broadway, stated that since the last meeting, he met with fred Patch to revise this plan and moved the garage back 4 ft. from the original drawing. It is now 8.2 ft. from the propetiy line and is within the 1,200 sq. ft. maximum allowed by ordinance. lie didn't think the garage would look good if it was set back 20 feet and did not feel there were any safety factors, noting that in the 45 years he has lived there, no safety issues have ever come up. He stated that curb cut access is already in place. The new dimensions of the garage are I4'x 40'. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Carlson asked f<Jr clarification on the dimensions as he recalled at the last meeting they talked about a possible 36 ft. addition. Kranz stated that was not large enough fc)!' a 34 Y2 tt. lllOtorhmne he may purchase in the future and also noted that he plans to store his R V year around. Frie concurred with Kranz that they saw no safety issues. Frie also asked him about thc possibility of building this garage within the rcquired setbacks, but Kranz felt it would be too close to his neighbor's property. who was not in i~1Vor of that location as it would block thc vicw to Broadway. Stmnpf concurrcd that it would take up a m,~iority of the back yard if built there. Stumpf also noted that there is an existing shed that will be removed. Kranz stated he was comfortable with the conditions fix approval. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE '1'0 APPROVE A VARIANCE fROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE PLACED R FEET FROM THE PROPERTY UNE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING TI IXT' APPROVAL WILL NOT IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF L1GIIT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY; UNREASONARLYINCREASE TIlE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET; INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER TIlE PUBLIC SAFETY; UNREASONABI,Y DIMINSH OR IMPAIR ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALUES WITIIlN crlIE NElGIIBORJJOOD OR IN ANY OTHER WAY BE CONTRARY TO THE - 1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes. 09/02/03 INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND TIlE SUBJECT PROPERTY CANNOT BE PUT TO RFASONABLE USE IF 'filE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DENIED. ROD DRAGSTEN SI':CONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. .Jeff O'Neill arrived at 6:40 p.m. 8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and consideration of an amendment to a concept stage planned unit development for Otter Creek Crossing. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report stating the applicants wish for an amendment to the comprehensive plan to accommodate approx. 19 acres of property for residential land uses. Staif has discussed this at length; the city's longstanding policy is to support industrial development and maximize industrial development opportunities, therefore staff docs not support the amendment. Grittman advised that the IDe generally suppOtis the amendment only if industrial land remains and suggested the residential land be placed further to the south. He further discussed the power line issue in the proposed residential area, again stating that the IDC proposed a compromise at their meeting earlier today and provided a copy of their decision for the Planning Commission's review. Chair Frie stated that he did not recall any input provided to them by the Parks Commission to date and O'Neill advised that they typically review and provide input at a later stage. Frie advised that the Parks Commission does not support parks placed under power lines. Rod Dragsten stated he was unclear at this tirne with the IDC's recommendation as stated. as they typically want to keep industrial land. Chair I,'rie opened the public hearing. John Chadwick, applicant, advised that he was at the IDC meeting earlier and that they were in support of their concept plan. He further stated he would like to clarify power poles versus transmission lines. He provided a concept plan showing a power pole running through their site, as \vell as one that runs through the CTrovel;:md residential development and a proposed residential development across 1-94. Chadwick then provided a concept plan with transmission lines, pointing out that they are different fi'OI11 power poles, and that this would defInitely be in an industrial area, not residential. I-Ie further advised of tree cover in that area, as well as a large wetland area of approx. 14 acres, which they feci are amenities f()I. a residential development. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Dragsten again noted that he was not comfcJrtable with the interpretation of the IDe's recommendation. Chadwick stated there had been discussion regarding wetlands, tree coverage, etc., and the IDC also had a better understanding of power poles versus transmission lines. Grittman clarified that his interpretation of the IDC's recommendation was that the !DC feels that some residential R- 2A is aeceptable. They recommend reducing the residential density in the 19 acres of Area C by incorporating industrial development along the power lines and enforcing the R-2A standards. Grittman also noted that this could be resolved at the concept stage. Dragsten did not feel they could amend the plan without knowing the amount of land to -.1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 09/02/03 reduce. Grittman advised them to possibly not state an exact amount of land designated for residential. Crrittman also added that the cOlnprehensive plan is not the zoning plan, and therefore it could be somcwhat flexible. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETEVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO 'fI-IE COMPREllENSIVE PLAN RE-DESIGNATING TIlE SOUTI IWESTERN-MOST PORTION OF THE 19 ACRE SIT1": FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DI~:NSITY RESIDENTIAL, RETAINING THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION ALONG THE POWER LINE, SLJBJEC'{" TO DENSrTY AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF MORE DE'TAILED PLANS, BASED ON A fINDING THAT THE LAND USE PATTERN IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS BET"fER SUITED TO RESIDENTIAL lJSES THAN INDUSTRIAL USES. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Carlson that he felt by approving the motion as stated, the Planning Commission would be approving it as primarily residential. Frie felt the result of the decision is based on the tabling of the conccpt stage PUD decision and that the land use decision is contingent on results ofthe site plan in the PlJ D concept. Carlson further stated he did not want the connotation that they are recommending more residential. but rather it be Icss than the 19 acres. Dragsten felt that reducing the 19 acres of residential would only make the area another small island of housing and feels that it should remain as industrial land as stated in the comp plan. Chair frie then asked Chadwick to justify changing the land use policy. Chadwick stated that there is a 109 acre residential site to the west of this site which abuts the property, so the proposed residential would not he alone. lie again noted the site has trcc coverage and a large wetland, and that there are not a lot of areas in the city with those amenities. lIe also noted it would bc a good tax base. Frie then asked Chadwick about thc plans for the industrial portion and Chadwick statcd there is a great deal of intcrcst in this industrial site, advising that they have been in discussions with several existing businesses that would be intercsted in relocating which are currently located on prime land in Monticello. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE M<JrION CARRIED lJNANIMOlJSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON TI IE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A DETACHED TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECf TO A MORE DETAILED PLAN AND CITY REVIEW. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a Conditional LIse Permit allowing a drive through carwash in the Central Community District and Consideration of a variance to the bufferyard rcquirements. Applicant: Broadway Kwik Stop, LLC Steve Grittman provided the staffreport regarding the applicant's proposal f()r a car wash on his site. He further stated that car washes are allowed in the B-3 district, but do not roll over -()- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 09/02/03 into thc CCD. However, if the city is in support of a car wash it could be added to the CCD as an allowable use by amending thc ordinance. Staff did not have any major concerns with the site plan, only that thcre is no zoning category at this time. Stumpf asked if the DAT had lnet and if so, what was their direction. Chair Frie noted that he did receive their comments on the way into the meeting and would provide them to the commissioners. He suggested giving the inlcmnation to the applicant for him to review and address, and possibly table any action at this time. Chair Frie thcn opened the public hearing. Tom Ilolthaus, applicant, stated that originally they did not intend to move this quiekly, but they anticipated that there would be concerns to be worked out, thercfore they decided to move forward at this time. Frie asked with the proposed amendment would they still need a variance and Grittman advised yes. Frie wanted the applicant and adjacent property owners to have a chance to review the comments made by the Design Advisory Team. Holtahus stated that he would likc to move forward with their sign request as they are still operating oiT the previous sign. It was advised that both items could be acted on in one meeting. frie clarified for the applicant and the people in attendance, that this item would be tabled and addressed at the next meeting in October. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS'rEN TO TABLE ACTION ON TIlE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST TO TilE OCTOBER 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED 'fI-fE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL fOR A PUBLIC I H~ARING fOR THE OCTOBER 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CCD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW CAR WASIIES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN TI-fE CEnrRAL COMMUNITY DlSTRIC'T. RIelIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOlJSL Y. 10. Public Hemin},! - Consideration of a requ~st f()r a varianc~J.o the lot area in the R-2 District and Consideration of a request f()r a simple subdivision to create two buildable parcels. Applicant: Mikc Cvr Steve Grittman provided the staiTrepOli and advised that the applicant is requesting to subdivide his parcel at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Minnesota which is currently zoned R-2. lie further explained that the parcel was a combination of 2 original lots and with the lots combined, they would be allowed to build at a higher density of possibly 3 or 4 units. The lot area would be less than what is currently allowed by ordinance and therefore the applicant needs a variance. Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. Mike Cyr, 60] Minnesota Strect, applicant, stated it was his intent to at some point build another home on that lot. l,'rie asked Grittman for clarification on density not being increased, but lowered, if thc lot was split. Grittman stated that in the R-2 zoning district, 2 family homes are pcrmitted and a 3 or 4 family structure -7~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/()3 could be built on the whole structure in this district. Theref(He, by dividing the lot and granting a variance. density would be lowered. Rich Carlson further stated that the applicant would not have needed a variance under the previous zoning standards. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. A MCr1'ION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGST'EN '1'0 APPROVE THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT COMPLAINCE WITH THE REGULATIONS RESULTS IN AN UNREASONABLE RESULT, AND AS SUCH, A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN PUTTING TilE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE lJSE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TilE SUBDIVISION, CONTINGENT ON TilE APPROVAL OF THE LOT WIDTH AND AREA VARIANCES. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. E..1J.blic Hearing: - Consideration of a request fOUH.Q.~~i~ll h9me occupational permit to allow hiring an emplovee. Applicant David & Kellv GassIer, Rejuvenate Salon .JcffO'Neill provided a brief summary of the applicant's request to hire an employee t(H" their home salon, noting that under certain circumstances another person could be brought in to a home business such as this. There have been no complaints regarding the salon. O'Neill advised of the city's ordinance regarding home occupations and stated that if the Planning C0ll1lnission approves, staff has provided conditions Jor the applicant to follow. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. David and Kelly Gassier, 6117 Mill Run Road, addressed the Planning ConHnissioll. Frie asked the Gassier's to clarify thcir request and they stated that they want to continue as a one chair, family business salon and arc not wanting to add an cmployee out of demand for more service or hours, but to increase their income and fully utilize their space. They have a child that they would like to keep out of daycare and the employee would be working whcn the applicant could not, and therefore their request. Gassier further explained that he informed 13 of his neighbors of their intent; people further away did not know they had a salon and neighbors close by were only concerned if there would be additional vehicles. GassJer assured them that it will remain a one chair salon, one appointment at a time, and the neighbors were satisfied with that. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. It was stated that the ordinance lists hours of operation of a home occupation to be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except with no vehicle parking on the streets and work remains indoors. The applicants stated that the hours would not go over 40 hours per week; a limit of 20 hours maximum, per person, based on a 2 person staff A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ALLOW A NON-RESIDENcr TO WORK IN THE HOME OCCUPATION SUBJECT "1'0 THE FOLLOWING -H- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/03 CONDITIONS: 1. The non-resident shall not work at the home occupation at the same time that the resident is working. 2. Non-resident vehicle parking should occur in the residence driveway. 3. ^ space for parking in the driveway for Cl.Istolllcrs shall be availablc at all tinles. Resident parking in the street should not result rrom making space 1'01' custOlner parking in the driveway. 4. All other terms or the previous home occupation shall be met along with standards identified in the zoning ordinance. 5. The duration ofthe permit is one year with the renewal process at the discretion or city starr. I I' stair reccives complaints or finds that thc applicant is not complying with conditions noted above to the detriment of the neighborhood then the applicant will he requested to renew the special home occupation permit via Planning Commission and City Council review. 6. Hours of operation for honIe occupation to be 7:00 a.lll. to 10:00 p.nl. A maximum of 40 hours per week, 20 hours lnaxilllulll per person, hascd on a 2 person stall'. MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVEN UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE CONDITIONS OR NEED FOR NON-RESIDENT ASSISTANCE, AND THAT THIS EXCEP'fION WOULD NUl' COMPROMISE THE INT'ENT OF TillS CIIAPTER. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y. 12. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a 14 foot variance to the rear vard setbacls.JSl allow addition of QJ.0~ x 16' deck, and consideration of a request to ameI)QJJ1~ zoning QIQin(J!K~_c,:t;Jl:iJiiD~ definition of decks and/or opell porches I()/" purnQse oLg~lback c1arificatioll. Applicant: Pat & Angie Ronavne Steve Grittman provided the report and noted the applicant's request t<')l' a variance to the rear yard setbacks to huild their deck. lIe further noted that stall encouraged the applicant to further request an mnendment to the zoning ordinance to identify the terms and establish parameters for allowable setback encroachments. Rather than recommending a variance, staff felt an amendment to the zoning ordinance would be better. Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no response the public hearing was closed. Frie asked Grittman if the applicant were to change the dimensions of the deck would it then conform and Urittman stated that there would be room on the garage side of their house, but would cause problems with accessibility. He further stated that the applicant could construct a deck to fit within the ordinance, but not to the applicant's expectations. However, Grittman stated staff felt the request was a legitimate and common request, and theret<.)re their suggestion for the amendment. They further discussed language in the current ordinance. There was further discussion on allowing decks on 2nd levels to encroach into the setbacks and Grittman stated most communities allow those, but only up to a certain height. The proposed amendment only clarifies that decks are included in the language. -<)- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/03 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO DENY TilE VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON A FINDING 'llIAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED UNIQUE PHYSICAL HARDSHIP AND "ITIAT AN ABILITY EXISTS TO CONSTRlJCT A DECK WITI IIN TilE SIDE YARDS OF THE PROPERTY. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDML':NT, BASlm ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITIt TilE GOAl, OF ENCOURAGlNG REINVESTMENT IN THE CITY'S EXISTlNG HOUSlNG STOCK. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Puhlic I learing B Consideration ofa request for develQPlnent stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval of the Emerald Estates Townhomes. Applicant: Tom Johnson, Emerald Estates, LLC Steve Grittman provided the report advising that the applicant's plan meets the general outline of the original approval. Staff is requesting the applicant to modify the elevations to specify finish materials, as well as enhance the landscaping. As part of the PUD approval, enhanced landscaping was something staff required of the applicant. Grittman suggested possibly adding patio spaces with pavers, ornamental fencing or arbors, or other similar features. lie also suggested adding more and larger trees reflecting the developed neighborhood. Lighting plans, a grading, drainage, and utility plan approved by the City Engineer, and a development agreement would also need staff approval. O'Neill aclvised of park dedication fees in the amount of $868/per unit. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Tom Johnson, applicant, advised that he was not aware of park dedication fees previously. "I"here was no further discussion and the public hearing \vas then closed. Grittman was asked to elahorate on what staff was looking for in regarcl to landscaping and he noted they had not done a detailed study at this time, but it appears that there are opportunities fix small patio spaces, decorative fencing, arbors/trellises, and private city space. I Ie further advised that the Planning Commission had previously granted a variance to encroach into the front yard setbacks, which in turn they would ask for amenities for the view from the front of the homes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR EMERAI)) EST A TES, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR TIlE SEPTEMBER 2.2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'rJNG AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHII3IT Z. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EMERALD ES'l'A TES, BASED ON TI-IE COMMENTS -10- . . . Planning COll1lnission Minutes 09/02/03 FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND CONDITIONS S'fA TED IN EXHIBIT Z. DAVE RIETVElD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Public I Iearing - Considcration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a lnixed resideptial and commercial use in a PZM district. ARPlicant: Janice Maxson Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the rcport noting the applicant's request to operate a woolen shop for retail sales and classes out of her home. This is a PZM district which is intended to be a transition zone betwecn commercial and residential, parking will be contained in thc current driveway which is a horscshoe type drive, the thinking being that the 435 sq. ft. of retail space would not require over 3 parking spaces, other than during class times. At some point, if the business wcre to increase, they may need to review again. Dragsten questioned the discrepancy with the number of studcnts stated by the applicant at one time and the number stated in Exhibit Z. Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. Janice Maxson, applicant at 448 W. Broadway, adviscdthe number of students would be approximately 4 at a time, two hour classes, one or two timcs a month. Maxson pointed out that her business would also help the quilt shop in town, as well as the deli stating the need for catering from time to time. She wants to maintain the house as a historical site and if her business were to increase and traffic becamc a problem, Maxson stated she would prefer to rent retail space rather than alter thc home. It was noted again that there would generally be from one to four cars at one time. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Fric asked about cstablishing hours of operation, which the applicant agreed to as 9:00 a.nl. to 9:00 p.n1., sevcn days a week. Thcrc was discussion on signage. whieh the applieant staled she did not want a lighted sign. but had envisioned two posts with a sign in the middle. something that fit with the character of the house. It was noted that thcre arc restrictions on signagc and Carlson felt the proposed sign was excessive. O'Neill statcd staff did not have access to a sign plan at the time of the report and it would necdlo bc reviewed. Maxson stated it might possibly be 6 ft. widc. but was not surc at this time and fUl1her stated shc wouldmect whatever the ordinance requirements are. O'Neill stated that the Planning Commission had some latitude to guide thc applieant. Therc was discussion on setbacks as the house is currently only I () it. from the property line and the sign would necd to be 15 ft. from the right of way, which Carlson stated the applicant should adhere to, as well as to scale down the sign. Grittman advised possibly referring the sign to the DA T for it's input on design and location, although it is not in the CCD. The majority of the commissioners concurred, although Carlson didn't feel the DAT could make that detcrmination. Grillman advised that the City Council could actually makc that determination, although Carlson didn't feel the Planning Commission should be giving these decisions to DA T. It was clarified that the City Council would determine the DA T's request. Maxson asked if she could put a temporary sign in the window; there was no objeetion and no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIIE CUP -11- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/03 ALLOW[NG A MIXED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL USE BASED ON T] [E FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE, W]TII CONDITIONS NOTED IN EXHI/3IT Z, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE PZM DISTR]CT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECON[JED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Consideration to call for a public hearing ilJr proposed amendment to the sign ordinance regarding sandwich board signs in the Central Community District. .lefT O'Neill provided the report advising that several months ago a request was made to the City Council to allow sandwich board signs, whieh the ordinance currently does not allow. There had been previous discussion on what should be allowed in the boulevards, as well as a result ofsonle of the latitude by stailallowing these signs during road construction. There was a positive response from businesses for allowing these and O'Neill stated some communities do allow them. O'Neill suggested setting up a strategic plan for consistency with the downtown revitalization plan and asked the Planning Commission to call fix a public hearing. There was discussion that the DA T and Chamber provide input as well. They discussed getting a small group together to gather input and bring feedback to the Planning Commission Lor them to make their decision. Grittman suggested checking with other communities that allow sandwich board signs and bring that infornlation back to the Planning Commission. '['he Planning Commission concurred. 16. November 4,2003 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Frie advised that in checking with city stare the November meeting fal]s on election day. It vvas adviscd that the School Board will be holding an election and thercllJrc 110 city rneetings can be conducted during those hours. Therefore, Frie suggested holding the meeting on Monday, November Jld. Stumpf advised that he would not be available the first Monday of the month. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICKFRIE TO MOVE THE NOVEMBER 4,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO MONDAY. NOVEMBER 3, 2003. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Rich Carlson asked if anyone was planning on attending the upcoming planning conference and it was advised to contact Lori Kraemer regarding registration. 17. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:05 P.M. DA VI-:: RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. ~' -I ~-