Planning Commission Minutes 02-05-2002
.
..,
. .J.
4.
5.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - February 5, 2002
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick hie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint llerbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
I. Cal! to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
I
Approval of minutes of the rel,!,ular meetin!.! held Januarv 8, 2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES Or: TIlE
REGULAR MEETING HELD .JANUARY 8. 2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITI I CHAIR FRIE ABSTAINING.
Consideration of addin!.! items to the al.'.enda. None
Citizens comments. None
Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned lJnit Development for two industrial
buildjn~s totalin!.! 187.500 square feet in an ]-1 A loninu: District. Applicant: Allied
Properties and Mana!.!emenL LI.C.
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report advising that Allied Properties and
Management. LLC is requesting approval of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
(PUO) to allo\\- the construction of two industrial buildings upon a 12.9 acre parcel of
land located west of Oakwood Drive hetween Interstate 94 and JI" Street. The proposed
industrial buildings measure 135.500 and 52.000 square feet in size respectively. The
suhject parcel is zoned 1-1 A, Light Industrial. Grittman advised several types of retail
uses he thought would be conducive such as a showroom and added that he anticipate that
with the layout of the facility as a warehouse type, it is compatible.
Grittman listed the adjacent uses and that the proposed use is compatihle with existing
uses in the area, and that the proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of
the City's Comprehensive Plan and the parcel is zoned for light industrial. Also stated
was that the applicant \Vas in compliance with the performance standards of the I-IA
zoning district as well.
- 1-
Planning COl11mission Minutes - 2/5/02
.
The proposed development is to he accessed from the north via two points along 71"
Street. and to prcwide more efficient (and safe) ingress and egress from the site. Cirittman
suggested that the two access points be relocated to align \\ith Wright Street and Ramsey
Strcet to thc north. To bc noted is that such realignment may prompt the rcconfiguration
or relocation of the proposed buildings. This issue should be subject to further comment
by the City Engineer.
Off-street parking supply requirements relate directly to the proposed use of property.
The specific use of the proposed huildings has not been indicated. As a result. a specific
off-street parking supply requirement cannot be dctermined. If the huildings are to be
uscd for warehousing or the handling of bulk goods. a total of 346 off- strcet parking
spaces would be required. Grittlnan addcd that \vith a total of 494 spaces hcing provided.
the off-street parking requirement for a warehouse-type use \vollld be satisfied.
For service/retail type uses with 50 percent or more of the floor area hcing devoted to
storage. a different ofT-street parking standard applics. In order to calculate the supply
requircment for such use. a hreakdown of service/\varehouse areas would need to be
provided.
As a eondition of a PUD the mix of uses. including level of retail use. will need to he
established. Also. as a condition of PUD approval. the proposed use will be required to
comply with the applicable ofT-street parking supply requirement. All off-street parking
stalls and drive aisles have heen found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of
the Ordinance.
.
Grittman adviscd that the proposed site circulation system was we]1 conceived. noting
scrvice and loading activities are confined to an interior truck court while
customer/employee parking is provided along the perimeter of the site.
Regarding landscaping. Grittman stated that while the proposed landscaping is considercd
positive. it is suggested that additional landscaping he provided along the olltside
perimeter of the two buildings. As part of the forthcoming Development Plan Stage
suhmission. a detailcd landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the location.
size and variety of all site plantings. as well as preliminary elevations which specify
huilding heights. exterior design and finish materials.
Grittman added that grading. drainage and u plans will need to be submitted as \vell and
that such plans will be subjcct to review and comment hy the City Engineer. The City
Engineer will provide specific commcnt in regard to the need for on-sitc ponding.
There has been no specific trash handling locations identified on the site plan. and
Grittman advised that the City prefers that trash receptacles he stored indoors. Therefore. .
a condition of PUD approval shall he that all trash handling cquipment be stored within
~2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5/02
the principal buildings.
In regards to lighting. the submitted site plan does not indicate exterior lighting locations.
^s part of the forthcoming development stage PUD submission. specific lighting
locations should bc indicated. Site lighting will be subject to review and approval by the
Building Official who will certify that lights have been installcd and perJl..Jr111 according to
the lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certjjieate of occupancy being
issued.
Grittman stated that the sign plan submitted shows four freestanding signs proposed upon
the suhjecl property (two along 1-94 and two along ]lh Street). According to the
Ordinance. two signage options exist for buildings \vithin 1-1 ^ zoning districts.
While sign details have not been provided. concern exists in regard to the location of two
of the frcestanding signs. The sign near the ]Ill Street access point is shov,n to I ic within
puhlic right-of-way while the sign in the southeast corner of the property is shown to lie
within a drainage easement. While the PUD could potentially allow for some flexibility
form the sign ordinance provisions. signs in these locations are not acceptable under any
circumstances. As a condition or PUD approval. all site signage \vill be required to
comply with the applicable requirements of the sign ordinance.
.
Chair hie opencd the puhlic hcaring. Hearing no response. the public hearing \\as then
closed.
There \vas discussion regarding alignment of the building with the street and it appears
that the applicant would have to reconfigure the building somewhat to accommodate.
although staff stated they had not yct discussed this with thc applicant. It was again
stated that the parking appears to meet city standards and there were no concerns from
adjoining residents. Grittman stated there is no anticipation for any problems. and stated
that actually there would he fewer considering that there might otherwise be somcthing
with a higher volume of trucks allowed in this area. Staff does ask that the applicant
address some screening on the cast and north sides.
Chair r:rie asked \vhat would be some possible issues \vith this plan and Grittman stated
tranic would possibly be an issue. although it would be more automobile traffic versus
truck. stating that Seventh Street will definitely become a busier street. O'Neill advised
that a pathway has just been completed along Seventh Street, as \\-ell as resurfacing the
Street. which will also help.
.
Richard Carlson asked about the tv\o areas shown for loading docks and would that be
sufficient to senice the entire structure. Grittman felt that what they are anticipating is
not so much large truck loading but more at-grade loading.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5/02
.
Frie again stated the concern \\ith the proposed signage in the public right-or-way and
asked if the applicant had been contacted to resolve that issue. ad\"ising that it is not
acceptable. Grittman stated he is not sure how the applicant will respond as they have not
yet been in contact.
A MOTION \VAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMENO APPROVAL OF
THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNEO UNIT OEVELOPMENT. RASED ON TJ-IE
FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LANO USES IN
THE AREA. SA TISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ANO
IS CONSISTEN-r WITH THE CITY'S USE OF PLANNEO UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WITH APPROPRIATE LANOSCAPING ANO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONOITIONS:
a. A discussion of level of retail activity needs to be identified and determined to
be within the intent of the II-A n:gulations_
b.
Prior to Development Plan stage approval. the following plans are submitted:
I. Landscape Plan
'") Grading and Drainage Plan
3. Building Elevations
.
c.
The two access points along 7'1l Street be relocated to align with Wright
Street and Ramsey Street to the nOI1h.
d. Additional plantings be provided along the perimeter of the proposed
buildings.
e. A II off-street park ing supply requ irements of the Ord i nance are satisfied.
1'. Trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal buildings.
g. Site lighting be subject to review and approval by the Building Official \vho will
certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan.
Such certification shall occur prior to a cel1ificate of occupancy being issued.
h. Applicable signage requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied.
l. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to access.
grading. drainage and utility issues.
RICHARO CARLSON SECONDEO THE MOTION. MOTION CARRICO
UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
-4-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
6.
Public J-1earin!1: Consideration ofa request to am('nd the Sin!2.1e Familv lonin!2. Districts lw
chan!2.in!2. lot sizes. setbacks. and performancl' standards. Applicant: Citv of Monticello.
Stevc Grittman. City Planner. provided th(' stall report. noting stall had lJrc\iously
submitt('d material related to a new zoning district kl1lHvn as the R-l A District. as \vcll as
changes to be discusSl'd relating to the existing R-] District and anothcr new district
KI10\\n as the R-2A District. Sincc thc timc that those ordinances \\TIT nrst discussed. the
City Council declared a moratorium on the constructinn nf certain homes that would be
affected by the proposed zoning changes. and an open house was held to receive
comments from builders and developers in thl' community.
The open house was well attended. particularly in regard to the moratorium. The
comments received at the open house broke into those addressing the moratorium
application. and those addressing the ordinance changes. Grittman and O'Neill provided
a summary of those comments and supplied copies of the Council report and comments.
Essentially. concern was expressed that the house size requirements were overly
restrictive. and that thc City would he compromising its housing market and allordability
hy adopting the changes. In gcneraL staIrs response has been that the ohjective of the
changes that have heen discussed was to increase value. and raise the level of housing
construction that has occurred in the community over the past ten years.
Onl' of the consistent issues raised hy the housing being built is that due to design and
small size. families move into housing that does not accommodate growing families.
Staff has observed that few. ifany. of the recently huilt neighborhoods have seen building
additions to expand li\able space. Instead. families choose to buy other housing as they
mo\e up in space needs. The concern is that thc move up market is locating outside of
the area. alTecting both the City's housing stock and the School District's enrollment.
(irittman summarized \vhat the three proposed districts were initially designed to
accomplish as well as providing some concepts that \\ere developed after meeting with
stall and from the open house. and provided the criteria for these concepts. He statcd that
the minimum square footage and total finishablc squarc f()()tage of 2.000 raised the most
concerns/comments. Staff tried to accommodate the city' s housing needs for entry-level
by crcating a R-2A zoning district. adding some standards. while also being Ilexible in
regard to set hacks. which would still enable people to build affordable housing and havc
the housing be of a higher quality. In essence this would be trading lot size for
development costs. Another concept was to require that all new subdivisions be reviewcd
and considered by the city to increase the level of design amcnities rathcr than just
engincering factors as they wanted aesthetic amenities as wcll such as natural area
prcservation . enhanced ponding. and paying morc attention to the edges of these
subdivisions.
Grittman prchided information on the existing R 1 district standards as \\ell as thc
-5-
Planning COIllIll ission Minutes - 02/05/02
proposed standards. He advised that a lot of the standards used an a\'eraging concept.
trying to fit in some Jlexibility allowing developers to deal \vith c'\isting topography. save
more trees. etc. Facade requircments \vould have brick and stonc minimum rcquirements
for R-I and R- I A. Chair Frie asked if the City Council had asked for a minimum of 15%
brick t~lcadcs and O'Neill stated that this was proposed by the Council but was not
initially proposed by staff. and this was also discussed with builders at the open house.
O.Neill added that the Planning Commission could add this into the ordinance
amendment if they wished to. but that it \vas not originally put in. Thcrc would also be
additional landscaping requirements in thc R-2A district due to smaller lot sizes.
O.Neill advised that the Planning Commission was provided with copies of all the
comments received at thc open house as \vell as prior to this meeting. He added that
projccts which \vere already in progress that had at least 15(1'0 brick fronts. 3 stall garages.
and at Icast 960 sq. ft.. could proceed. lie also stated there wcre commcnts regarding the
requircd building sizes wherc some felt that they may not accomplish the city's goal of
higher val ue homes just because they are larger. Some also felt that the new standards
would cost morc than what pcople can afford. O.Neill stated another question \vas wherc
would thc R-2A districts be placed. and he stated this really is a future question but that it
would eventually become an issue. O'Neill felt that most agreed that higher amenity
areas should be preserved. Also. therc were no objections to R-2A district with smaller
lot sizes. It was also suggested that an averagc square foot minimum be calculated in thc
R- I district. but li'om a staff standpoint it would bc too difficult to regulate.
Chair Frie stated he it was necessary to define affordable housing. entry level housing.
high density. and upscale housing. I Ie felt that affordable housing should be called work
f()rce housing. (,rittman stated therc really was no dcnnition f()J' upscale housing. He
stated what they havc tried to use was a working delinition for what he and staff all cntry
level housing and this is detined as housing in thc $150.000 pricc range. Urittman stated
this was \vhat it would take to get into a house in Monticello. O.Neill added that these
definitions were not based only on dollar amounts or locations.
.
.
Herbst questioned the number of developers coming in with a home that would cost
undcr $150.000. stating that is the reason for the cntry level housing term. O'Neill
adviscd that staff is concerned with having a balance of housing stock and the need for
preserving higher amenity areas for upper end homes. while at the same time having the
R-2A standards in place to maintain aff()rdable housing/entry level housing. He also
advised that for work f()J'ce housing there arc projects already in the placc to provide that
level of housing therefore maintaining a supply of work force/alTordable housing.
Oragstcn asked if a development"s housing would be split up to reflect these different
districts and Griuman advised that this \vould be done prior to developers coming in with
proposed projects. Ill' also addcd that our ordinance does not set up a sct of criteria for
PUD's and there is not much objectivc material. therefore the reasoning for the R-2A .
district.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
Richard Carlson asked if currcntly thc majority of the homes being huilt meet the
standards of 1200 sq. ft. and O'Ncill statcd that there are somc that are having difficulty
in meeting that size such as in the Grovcland area. These standards may slow dO\vn the
building there, also there aren't many amcnities in that area, thereforc the City Council
stipulated that the homes with 960 sq. ft.. minimums, along \vith the othcr standards
requcsted. could proceed. O'Neill added that they could gathcr additional information
regarding size requirements ti'om other communities. Hc stated that staff felt having the
larger size homes may keep people in their homes longer. I Ierbst stated that he felt from
a City Council standpoint in regard to increasing sizes of homes, which hc statcd has
been a goal for sometime, he feels that what they have been seeing is smaller type homes
this year in areas \\here they did ilot expect them. He also felt there should be flcxibility
fiJr lots that do not have as many amenities and could have a smaller sq. ft. home on it.
F rie added that he would like to not focus on the Groveland development as thcrc are
others in the city \\-ho have not met standards as well.
.
Robbie Smith stated that some of the comments li"om the open house were to increase
curh appeal versus house sizes. Smith asked jfthe concern was that families were
outgrowing there homes and there was no step up housing f(n them to move into so they
leave the community to find that type of home. Frie stated that hc felt that the school
district was using this as an excuse and it is not correct as there arc not developments in
the City sitting empty. O'Neill added that at the school board mceting they stated that the
kindergartcn class size was smaller for next year and class sizes overall are less. But.
O'Nci11 addcd that on thc census data it states just the opposite. Grittman summarizcd
that hasically the 960 to I 100 sq. 1'1. home is really a two hedroom home. and once the
second child is born, they are moving out to a larger home and if Monticello does not
have it. they mo\'(~ out ofthc community. Roy Popilek asked Staffifan average house
built today, without a finished basement. is 1200 sq. ft... and statcd that perhaps the 960
sq. n. minimum is still the right size as they still have the lower level to tinish if they
cannot afford to buy a largcr one. Frie agreed with Herbst in that the criteria of these
areas. whatever the City Council adopts, should be flexible and that over the course of a
fe\v ycars could be adjusted. O'Ncill also added that about 35ulr) of our housing stock is
rcntal and apartmcnts. stating this is really the first attcmpt at adding upscale housing.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ray Anderson, resident of the Monticello Village
Apartments. stated they sold their house in anticipation of huying a smaller home. lie
asked if a hasement was required on a 1200 sq. ft. house and Fred Patch stated no. lie
also asked if the 3 stall garage is the minimum standard and Patch stated that it was.
Anderson thcn askcd if there was a maximum size for a garage and Patch stated up to
1,000 sq. ft.. and that there were other provisions in the ordinance as wcll. Anderson did
add that the house he wanted to build \vould he approximately 1200 sq. ft. with no
basement. and he would he comfortable with thcse standards, however he fclt the City
\\-as driving younger people out as they could not afford to build herc. Patch adviscd that
appl ication of the new R I standards in the old town or original plat. deserves some
- 7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
re\'icw. Rene\\al of our downtown area is what staff\vould like to sce as well. \\ith some
fine tuning of the standards as well as grandfather clauscs.
Robbie Smith qucstioned the number of people looking for step-up housing, what is the
percentagc of people already living here in entry level housing and then moving up, and
do we have an over population of starter homes. He also felt there are more new people
moving in to these ncw developments versus people mo\'ing around \vithin the city.
Smith stated he felt we have cnough affordable housing such as in Cardinal I lills and
Klein Farms. As a general rule, new people are moving into these entry level homcs
being \'acated by people moving into step-up housing, or into ne\v developments with
larger homes.
Chair Frie asked Mike CYL MLC Building and Remodeling, about building a 960 sq. ft.
house requiring a 3 car garage. and Cyr stated he felt people would not build that small of
a housc and have a 3 stall garage. Cyr added that he is not opposed to the proposed
standards. Smith asked if v,ie were to leave the R] district as it is. would we still need the
R-1A district. Cyr added that his new development would fit an R-2A and feels there is a
legitimate need for this district. and that it helps to pro\'ide work force housing.
Richard Carlson advised that according to the current R1 standards someone eould build
a 600 sq. ft. homc and only finish a certain amount of it. and it \vould meet the
requirements.
.
Roger Paulson of 6499 Fallon Ave NE, asked about the proposed locations for the R-l A
district being in the to\vnship and not the City, and ho\\ does this work in rcgard to the
annexation process. who determines what is to be annexed into the City. O'Neill stated
that the process for anncxation if driven by a devcloper and/or propel1y owncr and that
they look at the comp plan first and then decide f1'0I11 there. The city does not determine
\\-hen or where annexation occurs, but in the planning process, staff identifies in advance
what these areas would be zoned. Larson asked if annexation happens in pockets or is it a
continuum. and O'Neill stated in the past they haY( annexed in pockets, but in recent
years it has been more of a progression. It would have to be contiguous to the City due to
the cost of extending utilities which would make it almost impossible to annex thosc
areas further out. and traditionally it has gone from inside the city, out. O'Neill also
added that in the Monticello Times there was an article stating Pelican Lake as an area for
R- ] A and that it is not staff s intent to go out that far. Frie stated it is not the intent of the
City to jump out that f~lr for an R-] A district. hut that the City needs to plan for this in the
future. Grittman also advised that this could have stemmed from a map that staff had
been using which may have shown these areas further out. but this would be 10+ years
from now.
Dave Klein, D. Klein Construction. stated he thought the plan was a good idea regarding .
R-:2A. but he does feel the R-l A standards may be a little too hard to build at this time.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
lie reels it \\ill take time to huild to those standards. He stalL's the battle for him to get
customers to ]\lonticello is that they ha\'e to spend a little more. building pcrmit costs arc
a 1~lL'tOL although hc has not looked into neighboring communities to sec what their costs
an..:. lie also agreed that ramhlers are an issue, as he could not get someonc to build a
2000 sq. ft. ramhlcr not including a basement. I-Ie stated the R-l standards works for
him, hc does a!.!.rce that we necd an area for R-l A in Monticello, but he !.!.cts verv few
- .... .
customcrs in that price range. Ill' also stated taxes have an impact.
Chair Frie asked about the roof pitches and both Cyr and Klein stated that is all they
huild. Popilek askcd if the 1200 sq. ft. standard would scare some buyers away and Klein
stated that it \\ould work with using the R-2A standards. stating he mixes his housing and
makes them fit. and that brick frontages is always part of his building. Patch asked Klein
ifthc 1200 sq. ft. minimum requircment with 2000 sq. ft. finished is a problem. and Klein
stated he would like to see the minimum he 1100 sq. ft.
.
Ke\in Lee, Princeton resident. added that he agrees that the ramhler situation needs to be
looked at. lie felt 1200 is a big jump. especially someone coming in to town or staying at
entry Ievcl. thl' 2000 sq ft would be too much. He also questioned the setbacks in the R-l
district. Grittman added that the 10ft rcar set back is in the R-2A district. but there is
Jlexihility in that standard. lIerbst added that mayhe a standard to look at is the potential
of 1000 sq. ft. finished with potcntial for up to 2000 sq Ji,
Denny Nelson. Progressive Builders. stated the square footage is a concern as most of
thl'ir homes arc in the 1000 sq. ft. range and are selling j(Jr $150.000. and that they have 3
stall garages, brick fronts. and are seeing the average homeowner staying for 5+ yrs and
finishing their hasements. He feels it is too much of a jump in the R.-I district and that
actually the 9()0 sq. ft. is sunicient.
Rohhie Smith states that the real issue is that in the 1\-1 there is no f(lUndation size
minimum stated in the ordinance. Patch also added that possibly trading 1200 sq. ft.
finishes \\ith 960 sq. f1.. and 15% or more brick on the front. would be an option. Smith
stated he felt that 960 sq. ft. finished. 2000 sq. ft. total would seem acceptable and Nelson
stated hc felt that v,iould work for them.
Chair r:rie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion among the
members and staff with Popilek adding that while he is pleased with the work hy staff
and (lrittman, he still felt that the 1200 sq. ft. minimum \\-as too much and he felt more
comf()rtable with possibly 1100 sq. ft. Also the need to address the rambler issue.
.
Dragsten felt 1200 sq. ft. linished would not achieve the objective of having larger
homes. and possihly 960 sq. ft. in addition to g.arage. people could build on from there.
lie also relt the requirement for a percentage of brick/stone should he worded differently
to stated other types of materials that would he acceptable sllch as decks or porches. and
-9-
Planning Commission 1\1inutes - 02/05/02
.
that some types of homes \\ould not look right \\ith brick or stone on tht' rront. I-Ierbst
stated that stall prohably would not want every home in the city to h~lve brick or all
developments \\ould look the same. Some possible \\ording was blending of materials.
stating no one material can take up to 70% of the house in the R-I district. garage size
should remain at 450 sq. ft.. noting that in tht' R-I district the garage size up to 700 sq ft.
would be fairly large. Garage location was also an issue with Dragsten.
Carlson also had a concern with the rambler situation. also adding that there should be
tlexihility regarding the 15% brick standard such as front porches. There may have to be
an architectural review process for those that deviate from the required standards.
O'Neill stated that possibly the Planning Commission could give staff better direction
and then meet again. but Chair Frie stated he v,;ould like to make a decision now. I-Ierbst
advised that the moratorium did not stop building and the intent \\'as to stop more small
homes being built jn the areas where there are larger homes already.
There was further discussion on the standards fix ramblers. possibly a ramhler that was
slab on grade would have a minimum requirement of 1200 sq. fL but :2000 sq. ft.
finishable on ramblers with a full basement. and a garagc size of 480 sq. ft. minimum.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO TABLE A DECISION ON TilE
SINGLE F AMIL Y ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS. PENDING STAFF REVIEW.
UNTIL THE MARCil 5.2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimouslv.
.
7. Consideration of call in!.! for a public hemin!.!. on an amendment to the Zonin!.!. Ordinance
allowin!.!. senior housin!.! as a conditional use in a Public/Semi-Public District (PS).
Applicant: City Staff
Jeff ()"Neil!. Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff report stating that it had eome
to staff s attention that the PS Zoning regulations do not prO\'ide for devclopment of
senior housing \\'hich was intended to be possible in conjunction \\"ith church
development. St. J'lcnry's Church and associate St. Benedicts. \vas developed sometime
ago in the PS District. and amending the code hy allowing senior housing in the PS
District will result in an ordinance that matches what the city has allowed. as well as
enable other church campuses such as Resurrection Church to dewlop senior housing on
their property.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
I-IEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO TI-IE ZONING ORDINA\JCE ALLOWING
SENIOR HOUSING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN TIlE PlJBLlC/SEMI-PUBLlC
DISTRICT. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOlIOJ\'. Motion carried
unanimousl y.
.
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5102
8.
Consi,kration of callin[! for a puhlic hearin!.! on an amendment to the !:onin[! Map re-
70nin!.! the John Lundsten properlv. as identified on the attached map. from 1~:2 to B-3. I-
I. 1-1 A. or a comhination thereof.
JeITO'NeiIL Deputy City Administrator. stated that this property. knov,-n as the
""Lundsten"" property. is eurrently located in the 1-2 district. It consists of about 15 acres
bounded on the north and west by B-3. and hounded on the south by I-IA properties. If
one l"Cviews the type of uses allowed in the 1-:2 district. it appears that I -:2 zoning district
at this location is out of place. The types of uscs in the 1-:2 district are not compatible
\vith B-3 uses. therefore in the event an 1-:2 was developed in this district. it could result
in a de\'aluation of the adjoining B-3 parcels,
City Staff requcsts that thc Planning Commission rcview the zoning designation of the
Lundsten parcel and consider calling for a public hearing on a potential zoning map
amendment.
The Planning Commission asked if this was a request by the property owner and O.Neill
ad\ised that it was not. and that this was being donc as part of preparing for future
development.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON REZONING OF TilE LUNDSTEN PROPERTY. AS IDENTIFIED IN THE
REPORT. FROM 1-:2 TO B-3. I-I. l-IA OR A COMBINATION THEREOF, ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED TJ-IE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Consideration of callin!.! for a public hcarinu for an ordinance amendment c1arifvin!.! rules
!.!overnin!.! temporal"\' si!.!ns displavcd in residential districts. Applicant: City Staff
.Ieff (fNeill advised the Planning Commission that the current ordinance governing
temporary signs (.:J.() day permit) is written in a manner that does not expressly prohibit
such signs in residential districts. Therefore businesses such as Servicemaster and West
Side Market. \\hich are in residential districts. are not expressly prohihited from
displaying 1cmporary signs, Lawful nonconforming businesses in residential districts
sign systems are currently only limited by the code provision that says such uses can not
expand,
O'Neill stated that staff has cnforced no temporary signs at Servicemaster under this
limitation. StatT believes that the ordinance should he amended to more directly prohibit
temporary signs in residential areas. He also stated that staff had been in contact with
Sen'icemaster and asked them to remove banners. West Side Market is not in
compliance. Frie asked Patch how they would deal \\ith non-compliance and Patch stated
there is a process for this. Some of the members didn.t have a problem with temporary
signs for these businesses on a main street. Popilek askcd \\'hat \\ould happen ifthc
- 1 J-
Planning. COlllmission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
Planning Commission did not call for a public hearing and O'Neill stated that they \\"ould
ha\'e to deal with it on a staff level. hie stated that without the puhlic hearing, he felt the
Planning Commission would vote it down.
Carlson asked ahout permanent signs in residential neighborhoods and it was stated that
daycares were allo\ved a certain size, 2 x 2 and Herbst added that it is actually a Statc law
that allows daycarcs to h;we signage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO DENY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT '1"0 TilE ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFYING
RULES GOVERNING TEMPORARY SIGNS DISPLAYED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Scott Dahlke PUD, Mornin!.! Glorv Development.
Jeff O'Neill stated there was a problem with the Morning Glory Development in that
when the Planning Commission approved the plat they missed that the drivev.;ays were
too close together. They have asked the applicant to change this, but thcre is a small
encroachment when pushed back 5 feet. Staff is asking the Planning Commission to
accept this modification as it is a PUD. O'Neill also stated it does not create a problem
\vith the school.
.
A MOTION Vv'AS MADE BY ROY POPILEK -ro APPROVE TIlE MODIFICATION
OF THE DR!VEWA YS IN THE MORNING GLORY DEVELOPMENT. RICl-IARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
] O. Richard Carlson then asked for an update regarding Danncr Trucking and Herbst stated
that Rick Wolfsteller had sent a letter. stating there is a problem with the applicant. but
that they are making progress. It is a legal matter at this time.
1 ] . Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN TI-IE MEETING AT
10:50 PM. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimoLlsly.
~-
.
- ] 2-