Planning Commission Minutes 03-06-2001
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGIJLAR MEF:'fING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - March 6, 200 I
7:()() P.M.
Mell1bers Present:
Absent:
Stalf:
Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek. Vice Chair Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Ilerbst
Dick Frie
JeITO'NeiIL Steve Grittll1an and Lori Kraell1er
1 . Call to order.
2.
...
-) .
Vice Chair Carlson called thc meeting to order at 7 PM.
Approval or minutes of thc regular meetinl!, held February 6, 2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDI~f) BY ROBBIE
SMITII TO APPROVE TI-IE MINlJrrs OF TilE Fl.:BRUARY 6. 2001 PI.ANNING
COMMISSION MEETINC;. Motion carried 3 to I with Roy Popik'k abstaining.
Consideration of addin~ items to the al..',enda.
Item 7B - Roy Popilek askcd for an update on the J. Morrell Trucking violations status.
Item 7C - Jeff C),Neill to update commissioners on ordinance violations statuses.
4. Citizens comments. None
5.
Consideration of a Development ~taL!e Planned Unit Development nx a townhouse
proiect in Klcin Farms I.:states 2'''1 Addition. and consideration of approval of preliminary
plat. Applicant: l~~wle Crest.
Steve Urittman. City Planner. reported that the Planning Commission tabled action on
Eagle Cn:st's Devclopment Stage PLJD at its February 111eeting. due to a nllll1ber of
outstanding design issues. and the applicant's inability. to review staff COllHl1Cnts. Since
that tirne, the applicant mct \vith stair and submitted a revised plan which llleets many of
staffs recommendations. Grittman summarized previous commcnts and the applicant's
response as listed in the starr rcport: The easterly access road should be moved to the
cast boundary and loop around the end units: the western-most driveway should be
continued around to loop back and connect with the westerly acccss road ( The
upp/icont 's requested this chonge not he required. olul hul'(' ugreed 10 require trush
pick-lljJ und t/wilhoxes to he locoted ulong Ihe loop rood. Stu/fugreed to slljJjJortthis
- 1-
.
design, lrilh the condition thut residents ure t1wde (/H'm'e of this reqllirelr/enl. lhe
dCl'('/ojJL'r urgued thut residents in the Ires tall' units wOllld prefc'r u "deud-end"
dril'eH'lI)' It'ith less convcnienl service locotions, rut her tlwn the loop dril'e. S'to/rhus
ogreed to occept this); The t\'.lO dead-end interior driveways in the quad-unit area should
be continued to intersect with Farmstead Dr. (Jhe "deud-end" orrongement is retuined us
I\'ith Note j, Ilnda the sume condilions. ,\"IUI/"lws ugreed to uccepllhis): All driveways
and roads in the project must be paved and curbed: Provide additional visitor parking
spaced throughout the development at a 111inimum ratio of one space per three units. a
total extra parking supply or at least 21 spaces: Provide a 5 tiJot wide concrete sidewalk
along Fannstead as shown on the plan li'om the trail connection on the east to the west
boundary oCthe property at Edmonson Avenue; Significantly enhance landscaping within
the foundation planting areas around the buildings, much more planting around the
building is suggested where none is now proposed (J'his recommendutiolllwd not/wen
met although ufier 111uch discussion alllOng the applicant and the comlnissioners, the
upplicuntfelt they could meet stu/rs /'('(juirClnent): Enhance planting along the Farmstead
Drive exposure with a buffer planting similar to that provided by Staffas an exhibit to
this report (The uppliulIlt included ufew such enlUll1CClnenls, hut u suhstuntial increase
I I '(!/lId he l1ecessm}' to 111eet I he cxpeclUt ionsfiir r U 1) designal ion .); Enhance planti ng in
the bufferyard area along the north boundary: Provide increascd plant sizes over the east
portion of the bufferyard: rinally. cluster mail box locations and identify trash receptacle
locations consistent with postal and trash-relnoval requirements (The applicant has
agreed to this requirement, and is l1"Orking ll'ith stal/aml the post olficefiir UPI)/'oIJriate
locot ions).
.
The commissioners asked Grittman how extensive the landscaping needed to be and
(lrittman stated that there are no certai n standards in our ord inances but that part 0 f the
conditions ror granting a PlJD are that thcre be enhanced landscaping, At this time the
applicant is showing significantly less landscaping which is not acceptable.
Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing, Bill Gleason, I':agle Crest Northwest
stated they relt they did add signilicant landscaping to enhance the project also noting
that they are concerned as well that this be a .'supreme" development. They did, howevcr
stnte that they \'.lill \'.lork with starf on adding landscaping. as well as size and locations.
.felT CYNeill requested iVIr. Cileason to advise why they were al1cl\ved to have the 1 go
drives instead, having the garbage and mail pick up at common sites. C;leason stated they
did not want all the streets to be through streets. lie feels they have nice circulation
having it dead-end. lie did state the owners may have a slight problern getting their
garbage to a common spot but preCerred that to a through street with possibly increased
traflic. O'Neill noted that there would bc up to possibly 12 units that would havc to carry
their garbagc at least 100 n. Cileason stated that the buyers would be advised up-li\lI1t in
thc association agreement. Gleason also stated that having a through street in that arca
would have taken up almost all orthe green space.
.
-2-
.
.
.
Clint Ilerhst Council Liaison. stated that in allowing a PUD, the City should have an
enhanced project and that having owners carry their garbage would hc an inconvenience.
especially with the amount of snow we.ve seen lately and lllay have a problen1 finding a
location f()r this. Herbst also had a concern with emergency vehiclcs getting through. but
Gleason stated that with the dead-ends and turnaround parking, these are technically the
owner.s driveways, stating it's the absolute best way to design this project and as f:lr as
snow removal/pile up, this is actually a better situation by allowing areas for the snow to
be piled. Gleason did state that it would be a possibility for them to put a walking path in
to make it a little more convenient to hall garbage/recycling. Gleason added that they arc
trying to rnake this affordable housing flJr lirst time home owners and that adding more
roads, etc. would incrcase the costs. Bill Gleason stated that in other developments it is
aetually the most eommon to have central pickup so that trucks arc not travelling up and
down the street. noting it is safer.
There was further discussion regarding the enhancement of the landscaping, as well as
some of the commissioners noting their approval of the dead-end streets yet noting that
this would be a trade off fl:)l' garbage/recycling having to be hauled to a eentrallocation.
Gleason advised that Public Works did approve of the road designs after further review.
as did the City l':ngineer. Also noted was that the fire departlllent would most likely work
fron1 Farmstead Ave. Engineering has looked at it
The public hearing was closed.
A iVI0TION WAS MADE BY ROD DRACJSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY
POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL ()F TilE DEVI~LOPMENT STACil~ PUD
AND APPROVAL OF TilE PREI JiVllNAR Y PLAr. SUBJI::CT TO CONDITIONS
MENTIONED IN TilE REPORT. INCIJJDING SICiNIFICANTL Y FNIIANCFD
LANDSCAPING, AS WELL AS RECOiVIMENDATIONS ()l-' THE CITY ENGINEER
AND PlJBLIC WORKS. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Consideration of an amendlllent to the /oninv. Ordinance to permit increased size Il.lr
frcestandinv. and electronic sil-'.ns. !\pplicant: Monticello Dodv.e.
Steve Cirittman. City Planner. advised that iVIonticcllo Dodgc submitted a request which
would allow fl.lr increased sign height area. and electronic display size I~)r freestanding
signs. The proposed sign is approxilnately 750 square ICet in area. 40 feet in height and
includes an electronic display that is approximately three times that of the current area
allowance. Grillman advised the current regulations. noting that the current standards are
an increased size for properties adjacent to freeway areas. O.Neill noted the sign features
a digital display that is capable of shmving ..television-like.. images.
The proposcd iVIonticello Dodge sign is I~lr in excess of the City.s current regulations.
which already include a "bonus.. size provision for free\vay frontage. It rivals the size of
-3~
.
billboards which have been long restricted. Grittman stated that planning starr is unaware
of eomparable sign allowances in other areas. The City's 200 square f()ot and 32 {l.)ot
height standards are in line with many other metropolitan area communities, and exceed
thc allO\vances of several. Finally. Monticello Ford installed a sign based on the new
rcgulations adopted by the City just one year ago. i\ change to the regulation could be
read to have an unequal impact on similar bLlsinesses in the same area and /oning district.
O'Neill stated that the proposed sign would replace an existing billboard.
Cirittman stated the concern would be that additional signage could take away Ji\)m City
aesthetics, and particularly in this corridor. others would likely take advantage of this and
\vould then become cluttered.
Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Bill Rambow, Denny I Iccker Automotive
Group, addressed the commission stating that they would be eliminating a billhoard that
is eurrently there. /-Ie stated this is a state or the art sign which would also he available
tl.lr the comnnrnity to use. Rambow provided another concept tl.lr a sign that may he
rnore pleasing which was the same size as the previous concept.
.
It was asked by the planning commission that if the applicant knew of the current
ordinance, why would they propose a sign that is in excess, and RambO\v responded that
they would be eliminating the billboard which the City has been trying to accornplish.
O'Ncill added that he did tell Mr. Rarnbow that he would need an amendrnent to the
ordinance for such a sign, but he did ask Cirittman if there was any way this sign could be
allcmed under a PlJD. If the PC liked the sign in this area, would there be a way to allow
this, yet now allow a prolireration of these types of signs in this area.
Carlson asked how the billboard had any erCcct on this particular application and again it
was stated that it is the City's desire to remove all billboards and this could be viewed as
a positive. Grittman stated that hillboards are not allowable now and are classilied as
non-contl.mning. O'Neill asked if because it is an on-site advertisement could this be
viewed as dillcrent than a billboard advertising for something else other than advertising
ror a specific business at that location.
.
Cirittman advised the reason for an amendment versus a variance in this case, stating no
hmdship could be fl.)lll1d fl.)]" <l variance. I Ie also stated that i r the pl'lI1ning commission
wcre to try to regulate these signs to certain sitcs only, mayhe they would look at zoning
this area to a car dealership zoned area which would then allow these types of signs.
(fNeill stated that it is IJl'coming more important to have something to dnl\V people off
the rree\vay and into Monticello. I Icrbst noted that the other businesses \vould most
likely \velcome signage such as what is proposed to get people olTthe free\vay and into
their businesses. Also, advertising for the community \vas a positive, although he did
agree that the size dilTerence is too great. Carlson disagreed and stated that all businessl's
in that area \vOLlld he allO\ved the saine size signage. Again mentioned was that the
smallcr si/e of the Ford sign, but also stated that the location was very different bet\vcen
-4-
.
.
.
Highway 25 and 1-94. especially in regard to speeds.
The puhlic hearing was closed.
A MCrrlON WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK RECOMMENDINO DENIAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO TI IE SIGN RFUlJLATIONS. AND RI~QUIRE COMPLIANCE
WITII THE CURRENT STANDARDS.
There was no immediate second to the motion. with furthcr discussion by Rod Dragstcn
stating to possibly table this item and research the size and location of the currcnt
billboard in comparison to where the new sign would be placed. Carlson again stated he
did not reel the billboard had any rclevance to this request. Robbie Smith statcd he was
apprehensive of the size of the proposed sign but does agree that it could be larger than
the 200' hecause of it's loeation on the Frceway. Rmnbow also stated that the Ford sign
size would not accommodate what they need. adding that he would like to have thc
planning cornmission consider a size somewherc betwcen what they are requesting and
the City's standards. lkrbst added that if this sign application was allowed it would have
to have the stipulation that it be top-of- the- line and he also didn't feel that the City
would sec too lnany applicants that would be able to do the same. Rambow asked if the
planning cOlnmission would eonsider tabling so they could mect with staff and come up
with something in the middle. O'Neill also asked that staJTbe allowed to research this
l"urther.
Vice Chair Carlson asked if Popilek felt he wanted to rescind his motion and table t(lr
rurther inl(ll"Imltion. but ancr further discussion. Popilek stated that his motion stood.
Carlson stated that he would be intercsted in pursing this application and tabling f()r input
fro1l1 starf and City Planner which may signilicantly change the issue at hane\. Popilek
agreed that he would be interested in hearing from stair and City Planner. llerbst again
added that the Ford sign is not rclevant to this application. The commissioners did add
that they did not ICel it was bir to designate a eorridor 1(11' this particular issue. but lnost
did agrcc that this sign could bring intraftic to othcr businesses as wcll. Popilek asked if
staff could COlne baek with something better. but then slated that his motion stands.
RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED TIII~ MCrrION. Motion carried 3 to 1 with Rod
Drngstcn voting in opposition.
7. Update on Walnut Strect/Sunnv r"resh parkin~.
C1rittman stated stafr discussed this and slatcd they wanted to rcsearch and get the status
on Sunny Fresh's project which is still in process. lIe did sl<lte that Sunny l'"resh did add
parking when they constructed their addition. but that they are not yet linished yct so staff
prercrs to wait and see what happcns to parking at that time.
-)-
.
.
.
713.
Update on the J. Morrell Truckin~ violations.
Roy Popilck asked if this iten1 could be put on next month's agenda. I Ie did stale that the
planning commission did make a recommendation to City Council that this be looked at
and (fNeill stated pictures were taken and a list oj"yiolations has been recorded, however
they have not cOlnpared the sections of the codes that relate to these violations nor has a
letter been written to the owner. O'Neill added that the City has hired an intern who may
be able to assist. Popilek again slated that this is about the liJ'th or sixth time this issue
has been asked to be addressed and O'Neill staled that next month would be line to haye
this item back on the agenda, along with an update regarding Sunny Fresh parking.
7C. City Council A~enda
O'Neill advised that there will he two ordinance amendments coming bell)re the City
Council at their next meeting. accessory buildings and regulations on huilding designs in
the B-3 district. Delays were due to City Planner being unable to attend the meetings.
CrNeilI advised that the City had hired John CiIOlnski as an intern who has extensiye GIS
training. stating that the County had just completed a parcel map of the City that we may
obtain and Glomski will be working on this project.
Robbie Smith asked about the quonset home on Elm Street and if it was occupied, stating
he would like stalTto look into this blighted home as the door is standing open and could
pose a hazzard. CrNl'ill stated he would reJer this on to the building orJicial.
8.
Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI I AND SECONDr]) BY ROD
DRA(iSTFN TO ADJOURN TIll-: MEETIN(i AT 8:30 PM. Motion carried.
~
-6-