Planning Commission Minutes 10-07-2003
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
MINlJTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - October 7, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd lIilgart andDavid
Rietveld
Absent:
Staff
Council I ,iaison Brian Stumpf
.leffO'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum, noting the
absence of Council Liaison Stumpf.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held September 2,
2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE SEPTEMBER 2,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRACTSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.,
-, .
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Rod Dragsten asked staff to explain the definition and procedures of preliminary and
development stage plats. This was added as item 12 on the agenda.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request for a 3 foot variance to the required setbacks for
residential driveways. Applicants: Leola Backstrom and Heidi & Wayne Bachler
City Planner Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising that the appl icants are asking
to subdivide their existing two-fmnily home into two salable parcels. Grittman stated the
primary issue raised by this request is the creation of a property line that runs through the
existing driveway. The zoning regulations for residential driveways require that a 3-foot
setback providing fix drainage and landscaping be maintained. He fUliher noted that
residential driveways are intended to have a maximum width at the street of 24 feet and the
current driveway violates this standard. Grittman stated that one possible way to address this
would be to cut out part of the existing driveway. O'Neill then advised that there actually is
somewhat of a separation already. It was further noted that staff had discussed potential
building code issues when creating lot I ines such as fire walls, building separation, separate
utilities coming into the home 1"iJr a 2-family unit.
Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the request, with conditions. One
alternative for the applicant would be to create a condominiun1, by leaving the parcel in place
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
but allowing for separate ownership with each owner owning the lot in common, allowing
for separate sales. Staff would be in support of this, although they are somewhat concerned
with the applicant being able to meet the listed conditions.
Chair Frie asked the applicant ifhe understood that if the request was approved, they would
need to be in compliance with driveway standards and would need to condominimize the
parcel as well. Mr. Bachler stated he understood this.
Grittman explained a condominium plat advising that the state adopted this as part of the
statutes several years ago. If the property becomes a common lot line it would have to follow
state building code laws. Building Official Patch stated it comes down to cost, in most cases
when a 2 family dwelling becomes single family, many iten1s need to be remedied to meet
code. Mrs. Bachler stated the util ities are separate but there is no fire wall. It was further
noted that if the applicant pursues the condominium they would not have a lot line separation
and therefore would not need to change the driveway.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Applicant Wayne Bachler, 311 Minnesota St, stated he
was a little surprised by this suggestion of a condominium but that they would abide by this.
Frie asked Mr. Bachler if he was aware of the fact that he would no longer need to remove the
necessary section ofthe driveway, which is an asset. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was then closed.
Dragsten stated if this were to be approved, it should be approved to make the lot line adjust
to be split and if the applicant is not able to accomplish this due to costs, then the
condominium route should be pursued. Carlson also stated that with the existing driveway
they could not accomplish the 6 ft driveway separation requirement as the existing shrubbery
would be in front of their garage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE SUBDIVISION, BASED ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE; AND BASED ON COSTS, THE APPLICANT
WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPTION TO CONDO MINIMIZE. DAVE RIETVELD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing car washes
by conditional use permit in the central community district. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik Stop,
LLC
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report and noted that the purpose of the
ordinance amendment was to establish the potential of having a drive-through car wash in
the central community district. OriginaIly this district was established to encourage a
pedestrian oriented downtown and when the boundaries were drawn, they included this
facility. There is a list of conditions that are designed to ensure that any use such as this
one meets the intent of the CCD, and designed to fit in with the downtown area.
Planning staff'does not have a recommendation, although Grittman advised that with the
following agenda item, this ordinance amendment would need to be approved.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
.
O'Neill added that the Design Advisory Team reviewed this item earlier, and although
they had somc concerns they did rccommend approval with thc conditions listed in this
staff' report, and included the condition to require that the door be closed on the carwash
during drying to kecp the noise down, in consideration of the residential neighborhood
and outdoor dining across the street. This was the only specific added to the conditions,
although there are other standards in the district that would need to be addressed. O'Neill
clarified that this item is separate from the next item which is a request for a CUP. Frie
wanted to make sure the Planning Commission had all conditions listed prior to making a
recommendation. O'Neill stated there were no others related to the ordinance
amendment and that this is for the overall district and not specific to this request.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Lawrence Clausen, property owner abutting the
applicant's property to the west, asked about the 2 foot retaining wall between the
residence and the business. Flolthaus stated this is to maintain the drop in elevation that
is already in place, with the residence to the south, which has a retaining wall already in
place. Clausen felt that vehicle headlights whcn entering the car wash would shine
directly into his residence and is therefore requesting a 6 ft. high retaining wall. Holthaus
noted that they have agreed to do this. He stated that the retaining wall is actually going
to be on the south side and a fence could be erected on the west side, or the side between
the Clausen residence and the car wash. Chair clarified that there would be no retaining
wall on the west side. Mr. Clausen requested a maintenance free fence and stating again
that it would need to be a minimum of 6 ft. in height. He further stated a concern with
the grade as currently water pools into his yard. Holthaus stated this would be a parking
lot with curb and gutter, which was installed by the city, sloped by the car wash, and
running south and east. Clausen also had a concern with possible glare from the light
poles and it was advised that this would be addressed with the CUP request.
Susie Wojchouski, OAT representative, advised that they had just had an extensive
discussion on this item and the concerns had already been addressed by O'Neill. They
are also working on sign issues. Thcy did not discuss the 6 ft. fence to the west but she
did not feel that would be an issuc. Susie also noted that OAT had a similar concern with
light glare and she is confident that the applicant will address this.
Chair frie then closed the public hearing. Thcre was discussion regarding the current
curb cut on Broadway; it was noted that cars will be entcring from thc side street.
Holthaus stated there was one pole light in the SE corner of the lot which he discussed
with DAT and he does not see a reason that this would need to stay after the car wash
was constructed. He advised that the landscaped area will be raised, and beyond that is
outdoor storage which would be carried through at about a 5 n. height. Patch then
provided a drawing to further explain the storage area and elevations, retaining wall,
landscaping, and signage. Dragsten asked if this site plan was consistent with the
proposed ordinance amendment and Grittman stated that thcy do believe this will meet
the requirements. He further stated that with the CUP request there arc several more
conditions that they would rcquest.
.
Ililgart asked ()'Ncill for the boundaries of the CCD and O'Neill advised. hie stated
perhaps staff could provide a boundary map of the CCD at the next meeting for future
referencc. II i Igart f'urther stated he wanted to see the boundaries to dctcrmine if a
3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
property owner next to this site would also be allowed to have a carwash. It was noted
that other property in this district would not be large enough to accommodate this. Frie
added that ifthere is a concern by staff feeling this may not be consistent with the
original intent of the district, stafT should review further and bring back for discussion. It
was advised that staff had reviewed the site plan and Frie asked if the applicant was
aware of the list of conditions noted and he advised that he was. Frie then asked the
appl ical1t if he felt the concerns discussed with the OAT had been resolved and he stated
he felt they had been, although there arc still a few items that need to be worked out. It
was advised that this would not need to be addressed prior to action on this item. O'Neill
further advised that there would be a variance required for the butTering between the
uses, but traditionally they have allowed buffer yard variances in this district as there is
not sutTicient room in this district.
Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Anlendment to establish car washes as a Conditional Use
in the CCD zoning district.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL Of THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS
INCONSISTENT WITII THE APPLICABLE PLANNING AND ZONING OBJECTIVES
FOR TilE DOWNTOWN AREA. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TilE MOTION.
MOTION FAILED 3 TO 2 WITH FRIE, CARLSON AND DRAGSTEN OPPOSING.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK fRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL Of THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A fINDING THAT THE USE COULD BE
DEVELOPED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CCD AND THE
COMPRElIENSIVE PLAN CIIAPTER or THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
PLAN. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2
WITH LLOYD HILGART AND DAVE RIETVELD OPPOSING.
7.
Continued public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit allowing a
carwash in the central community district, and a request for a variance to the buiTeryard
requirements. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik Stop, LLC
Steve Grittman provided the report and advised that the CUP would be to accommodate
the car wash, presuming that the City Council follows the Planning Commission
recommendation and adopts the ordinance. He noted there arc 2 zoning requests, one f(H
a CUP and the other f()l' a variance to the buffer yard. He stated the city's approach to the
buffcr yard requirements has been to accommodate an easy mix of residential and
commercial uses, and secondly the reality that buffer yards don't physically fit on most
downtown sites. StatT had several recommcndations including additional, more intcnse
landscaping. Grittman advised that landscaping was shown on the applicant's site plan,
however staff is asking for it to be more intense. The setbacks also appear to work with
the site. There was discussion regarding fencing along the west side and the DA T is also
discussing the possibility that one be addcd to the south side as well. Grittman stated the
proposal fits well for this site and most areas of activity will be screened by the building
itself. Circulation/stacking should be accomplished without interference with the
convenicnce store tratTie without conflicts. Grittman stated staff also recommended
architectural design review by DA T as well as a site plan recommendation to narrow the
4
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/03
.
curb cut spacing as much as possible because of exiting tratlic and canopy area. It is
staffs recommendation to work with the City Engineer and staff to narrow the curb cuts
as much as possible to get as much landscape and island as possihle on this site. Staff is
recommending approval of both requests.
O'Neill added that DAT approved the conditions with the addition to condition 3 stating
there was discussion on lighting the canopy and the applicant was willing to modify the
fixtures to not impose on the neighborhood. The applicant also volunteered to remove
the existing pole, which is a security light that can be removed without sacrificing
security. Also, buffer yard requirements to include the requirement of a 6 ft. fence and
additional, intensified landscaping. Lastly, regarding the proposed sign, there appears to
be a conflict with the size and what is allowed by ordinance in the CCD. It was advised
that there had becn considerable discussion and they were getting closer to an agreement,
and it was asked that the Planning Commission let the DAT work on this.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Susie Wojchouski, OAT representative, stated they
did not have adequate time to review the signage completely and although there were
some concerns, they were pleased that it will be a monument style sign. She also stated
that K wik Stop is part of a corporation and would also need to abide by those sign
standards. Frie advised that Crostini's Grill had approached him regarding the lighting as
well, but it looks like this is being addressed. Frie asked if he was comfortable with the
resolving of the sign issue by DAT and staff, and IIolthaus added that this was their
anticipation as well.
.
Dragsten asked about the hours of operation and also what would be done with the
existing building. Holthaus stated it is intended to be remodeled in the future, but they
did not want it to interfere with the operation of the store as it would be complicated,
although they do intend to remodel so that it would be similar to the car wash and he felt
this would be several years down the line. They will continue with the current hours of
4:30 a.m. to II :00 p.m., 10:30 p.m. in the winter.
Carlson asked that staff take into consideration the fact that the Chambcr currently has an
internally I it sign, located in the CCD, and stated this could be a cost issue f()r the
applicant. There was furthcr discussion on the placement of the retaining wall and it was
noted that the resident to the south was more in flVor of the landscaping. Carlson did not
feel the fence would be more aesthetically pleasing and I Iolthaus and Grittman
concurred, further adding that landscaping could be intensified versus a fence. It was
noted that the proposed fence was in response to the neighbor's request and felt they
could further discuss this with her. Frie asked i fperhaps this could be discussed with the
neighbor prior to the City Council meeting, and leaving it open to fLllther discussion.
Fric asked if Holthaus was familiar with the conditions noted in the staff report as well as
conditions stated by the DAT. Holthaus was concerned with the request to make the curb
cut narrower, stating that due to the placement of the canopy, there was not su11icient
room to narrow it and still be able to circulate, further adding that was the reason they
wanted to close off access to Broadway.
.
O'Neill also stated that there will he some trees removed along the south edge of the
property at the heginning of the project, which they will replace with landscaping.
5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash in a CCD zoning district.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROO DRAGSTEN '1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of
THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CAR WASH MEET'S THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING OROINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING
CAR W ASIIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE CCO, SUBJECT TO
ARCHITECTURAL AND DF~SIGN REVIEW BY THE DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Carlson that the fence stop at the south side of the building
and to intensify the landscaping.
ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED TI II'; MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE FENCE BE
STOPPED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF TilE BUILDING AND THE LANDSCAPE BE
INTENSIFIED. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE AMENOMENT. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOlJSLY.
Decision 2: Variance from the ButTeryard requirements.
A MOTION WAS MAOE BY ROD ORAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL or
'n IE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT A HAROSHIP EXISTS IN PUTTING
THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER THE REGULATIONS. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Frie asked DAT rcprcscntativc Susie Wojchouski to keep the Planning Commission
updated at the November meeting. Wojchouski advised that the OAT had called for a special
meeting, prior to the City Council meeting, to address this and it was suggested that O'Neill
provide this infcmnation at the next Planning Commission meeting. Grittman also provided a
map showing the CCD boundaries. Frie asked if the CCD should be looked at fc)r purpose
and intent, as well as consistency of the intent. O'Neill felt that reviewing the redevelopment
plan and comparing it to the code of the CCD could be done and if it was felt that the plan is
no longer in sink maybe it should be reviewed further. Frie stated that he would like to see
the DA T expand their duties beyond the CeD, noting thc Hospital District's current
expansion, and that he felt the OAT should have more i1exibility. Wojchouski advised that
the DA'I' was formed with the Downtown Revitalization Plan which encompasses the CCO
and if the Council chose to expand this, DA T would need to comment.
8.
Item removed from agenda.
9.
Consideration of allowing property owner opportunity to supply parking at a rate which
is 60(% of the standard requirement.
Jeff O'Neill, Community Development Director, provided the statl report advising of a
proposal presented by James and Gruber fc}[ development of a 16, 956 sq. ft. office
building along the west side of Walnut Street. The Planning Commission is asked to
consider allowing a reduction in the standard parking rate, which would actually result in
7()(% of the standard requirement, exceeding the 60% standard. O'Neill provided a site
6
.
.
lQ.,
.
Plann ing Comm ission Minutes 10/07/03
plan showing the existing buildings and parking, as well as the proposed project, stating
the design matches what the city is looking at I'()r redevelopment of this area. They are
proposing head in parking and the sidewalk is to remain. O'Neill further stated the
proposal is similar to the Towne Centre site also located in the CCD. He did note also
that Ace Hardware owner, Al Larson, had submitted a letter granting a cross casement for
parking. O'Neill advised that a formal request t'()r a PUD will be submitted soon, but the
developer has asked that he be able to move t'()rward in anticipation of attending the
November Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Frie questioned if this might be setting a precedence t'()r reducing parking on other
projects, however O'Neill advised that these requested are addressed case by case. There
was further discussion on what types of businesses would be located on this site and
O'Neill stated it appears to be single level oflice suites, some possibly with basements,
however a final design has not been determined at this time. Frie didn't believe the intent
was totally office suites, but he did not feel this would affect the parking supply. It was
noted that the redevelopment plan encourages 2 story structures. Hilgart felt it would
make a difference in traffic and parking demand depending on what the nature of the
businesses are, although Grittman stated that a mix of retail and office in the entire
district allows them to average out parking and felt this would be sufficient from a use
standpoint. There was further discussion on the intent of the redevelopment plan
encouraging two story buildings, as well as the need to look at parking needs as they felt
the uses would make a difference in the demand for parking. There was no further
discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE
PARKING REQUIREMENT TO 60% OF THE STANDARD, CONTINGENT ON THE
DEVELOPER PROVIDING CROSS EASEMENT PARKING TO THE PUBLIC,
ALONG WrrH THE DEVELOPER PAYING INTO THE CCD PARKING FUND.
DEVELOPER ALSO TO OBTAIN SIGNATURE FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNER ON AN APPLICATION fOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWING PARKING LOTS TO MERGE FROM A FUNCTION AND USE
STANDPOINT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Consideration of amcndments to the city's sign ordinance addressing "Sandwich Board"
(Portable Signs) in the CCD Zoning District.
Steve Grittman advised of a request by the Chamber of Commerce for the city to amend
their sign ordinance to allow sandwich boards in the CCD zoning district. It was noted
that there are businesses that currently use such signage in violation of the city's
ordinance. Statfproposcd a draft ordinance that would amend the city's permitted sign
ordinance, allow for these types of sandwich board signs during business hours that
would not obstruct pedestrian trallic on the sidewalk and placed nearby entrances to the
businesscs, and to identify specilic commercial activities on the site nearby such as
restaurants with menus.
It was advised that the Chamber had submitted suggestions and information was
compiled from other cities that was incorporated into the proposed amendment. Fred
7
.
.
.
LL
Planning COll1mission Minutes 10/07/03
Patch stated that in the CCD requirements it allows for non-illuminated temporary
signage, which is part of the plan document and specifically provides for thcse types of
signs, long ago thought of, but not incorporated into thc ordinance. Patch further statcd
that presently these signs have been somewhat of a nuisance. They discussed seasonal
signs, howevcr it was noted that the city requires the signs to be moved indoors and felt
that would be sufficient.
Wojchouski stated that the businesses are willing to have a quality product, noting that
they also know that some of the signs are in violation and they are willing to order quality
signs if the signs are going to be allowable. She also notcd that the Chamber polled the
downtown businesscs and most werc in favor, although many would not have a use for
them. It was noted that the intent was to have one sign per business, although this was
omitted from the report.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING
"SANDWICH BOARD" (PORTABLE SIGNS) IN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOlJSL Y.
Set date for open house/workshop to discuss possible amendments to the cOll1nrehensive
plan regarding single family to attached townhouse unit ratios.
Jeff O'Neill advised that statT currently has been following the 2 to 1 ratio, although they
have not adopted a formal policy or held an open house. I Ie also asked that they take into
considcration that they arc short-staffed at this time and perhaps hold off on conducting
the open house until a further date. Chair Frie stated perhaps they could hold the "open
house" in January to kick off the year. It was the consensus of staff and the Planning
Commission to hold the "open house" in January 2004.
12.
Plat Definitions
Rod Dragsten asked staff to explain the difference between preliminary and development
stage plats. Jeff O'Neill advised of the definitions, further adding that it has been staff s
position to encourage developers of new subdivisions to submit a sketch plan for
Planning Commission's review prior to design and cngineering work to be able to offer
feedback to the developers. O'Neill further stated they will no longer allow re-zoning,
concept stage and development stage approval to occur all at once as they need to make
sure Planning Commission and City Council arc comf()ftablc with zoning/land use prior
to design, and application forms have been revised so that this docs not occur. Patch
further stated this supports the city's comprehensive plan.
Chair Frie then thanked Lori Kraemer for her work as the Planning Commission
secretary, noting this was her last meeting.
8
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/07/03
13.
Adiourn
^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY DAVE
RIETVELD TO ADJOURN Tl-IE MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Reeorder
9