Planning Commission Minutes 11-08-2000
.
.
.
MINUTES
RE(;l)LAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 8, lOOO
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Rohbie Smith, Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson, Rod
Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint llerbst
Staff Present:
Jeff O'NeilL Freel Patch. Steve Grittman and Lori Kraen1er
1 . Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM.
2. ^pproval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 3. 2000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICH^RD
CARLSON TO ^PPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER ],2000 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried 4 to 0, with Chair Frie abstaining.
.,
-) .
Consideration of addine items to theaeenda.
Rod Dragsten asked to add discussion to item 10 regarding house sizc standards.
RoyPopilek asked Ii)!' an update regarding the Jay Morrell truck site violations.
This \vas placed as item 12A.
Roy Popilek asked 1i.)r an update on the audio/visual problems in the council
chambers. Building Official Fred Patch addressed this issue stating that they have
been working with Bose who is in the process of coming up with a solution to this
problem. Patch stated something should be accomplished within the next 30 days
and that the time frame fell' correcting this problem would be spread out between
now and aner the Ilrst of the year due to budget constraints.
Chair Frie asked for discussion regarding the procedure for the appeal process,
noting the Automaxx denial for a variance by the Planning Commission and the
City Council denying the Planning Commissions recommendation. This was
placed as iten1 128.
· Chair Frie asked for discussion regarding procedure of commission members and
applicants prior to pubic hearings. 'fhis was placed as item 12C.
4. Citizens con1lnents.
None
5.
Public Ilearing ~ Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to allow a
second accessory building on a single family lot. Applicant: John & Kim Carlson.
Fred Patch, Building Official, addressed the commission noting that this item was
- 1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
withdrawn. Undcr our code, a second accessory building can not be constructed without
a conditional use permit unless the second accessory building is less than 120 square
fcet. If the second accessory building is less than 120 feet it does not necd a CUP. In
thc Carlson case, the second accessory building was greatcr than 120 squarc feet so a
CUP process was initiated. It was later discovered that the first accessory building on
the Carlson property was 120 square feet. Staff determined that a conditional use permit
was not necessary because it was the intcnt of the ordinance to allow two accessory
buildings without a conditional use permit so long as one of them is 120 square feet or
less. It really does not matter in which order they are constructed.
The Carlson's application is in thc process of being refunded.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a variance to a side yard setback
frontine on a puhlic street, in the R-l, singlc f~lmily residential district at 9336
Homestead Circle, to allow eonstruction of a detached garaQe. Applicant: City of
Monticello
Fred Patch, Building OHicial, addressed the planning commission and noted an error
made on the part of the City in regard to scthack requirements at this particular adelress.
Mr. Stacy Braun rcsiding at 9336 Ilomestead Circle had been issued a building permit fc.)r
a detached garage that is facing upon l~omestead Drive. When the building permit was
issLled for this garage. the building inspector refcrenced Section 3-2[D]3 of the Zoning
Codc: "Detaclledacce.nory huildillg.~ .\lIallllot exceed.f!fteell (/5) feet illlleiKht and.\'lIall he ten (10)
.feet or more from all side lot lilies of (u(joininK lot\',fil'e (5) .feet or morefrom tile rear lot line, sllall he
tell (10) .feet or morefroll/any otller huildillg or structure Oil tile same lot, and sllall not be IO('(lted
lVitllilla utili(I' easement. '. Because that section of the code docs not refer to side yards
fronting public streets, the huilding inspector determined that all side yard setbacks for
the accessory structure are ten (10) feet.
In the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, even though those setback requirements for
acccssory structures are more specific, Section 3-2[D J3 provides only for "side lot lines
of adioining lots", and did not intenel to supereede Seetion 3-3 IC12 of thc Zoning Code
which requires a 20 foot side yard setback f(n buildings fronting on a public streets:
"/n R- /, R-2, B- /, and B-2 districts, ~llot is a corner lot, tlte side yard setback .\lIall he not less titan
twen(F (20) feetfrom tile lot line abuttinK tile street right-(~f-lVay line."
Patch stated that clarification to the zoning code may be necessary to avoid this problem
in the future. This problem was not discovered until the garage was entirely framed. The
Planning Commission was asked to allow a variance to the side yard setback which will
allow the garage to remain whcre it is constructed at 10 feet back from the propcrty line
Cronting on l-Iornestead Drive. llardship is establisheel by the questionable application of
the Zoning Code by the City. In addition, the Planning Commission may call for a public
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
hearing to amend the Zoning Code Section 3-2[0]3 to include accessory structure
setbacks for side yards fronting on a public streets. Additional landscaping may soften
the impact of the garage in its c10scness to Homestead Drive.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Stacy Braun, the home owner, stated Patch had
covered all issues in his report and that he discussed landscaping possibilities with him as
well, Braun was receptive to the landscaping adding that he felt it is necessary as well for
the integrity of the neighborhood. The public hearing was then closed.
There was discussion among the members as to who would be responsible for the cost of
the landscaping and they felt it should not be the homeowncr. Patch statcd stafl would
work with Mr. Braun regarding landscaping.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON TilE FINDING THAT THE
VARIANCE IS NECESSARY DUE TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED BY TilE
QUESTIONABLE INTERPRETATION OF TilE ZONING CODE BY TilE CITY.
Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Devclomnent to allow a mix of
commercial uses. Applicant: Dan Mielke.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report regarding thc applicant's request to
develop property he owns between Trunk Highway 25, the new Chelsea Road (east) and
Cedar Street south of the Tom Thumb. The appl icant is also seeking a vacation of a 16
foot wide portion of the Cedar Street right-of-way to accommodate the redcvelopment of
the site. The proposed development would retain the Ultra Lube and Subway restaurant
and in addition another fast-food restaurant, a car wash j~lcility, a convenience store with
gas (with an additional 1,600 square feet of other retail space attached), and a full-service
restaurant. The proposal relies on PUD f1exibility since much of the project would share
parking between parcels and utilize common clriveways without separate landscaped
areas between parking lots.
Grittman advised that the assumption for any PLJD is that the sum of the process will
create a project which is superior to a project which would adhere to the strict standards
of the zoning ordinance. Such a finding is one of the requirements to issue a Conditional
Use Permit for a PUD.
Building front classification was discussed in detail as applicant devised site plan
assuming TH 25 to be the front. A generalized discussion of signage was provided in the
application letter, although the plans are not prepared to this level of detail at this stage.
The site includes all uses which are permitted or conditional uses in the B-3 District.
Each of the uses is a high-traffic generator and is automobile~ oriented, that is. there is
-3-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
likely to be little cross use of the site. As such, the design must accommodate access to
the indi vidual uses for a sufficient number of visitors, and little intcraction between uses
would be expected. The applicant states it is their feeling that there would be a great deal
of cross traffic.
The applicant's information includes an analysis that approximately 168 parking spaces
would be required for the entire development. The site plan illustrates 186 spaces with
the majority of those on the northern half of the site, with primary access to be via the
main driveway off of Cedar Street. A central drive running north-south distributes traffic
internally. There are a few design concerns with the site as presented on the plan,
including concerns with exiting traffic from the fast-food restaurant, and acccss through
the gas island arca to Cedar Street and the availability of parking next to the car wash
along the main internal access drive.
.
Grittman stated that if a shopping center design, which would concentrate more
meaningful open spaces, is not acceptable to the applicant, it may be that the proposal is
too intense to qualify 1()[ PUD consideration. Because the buildings arc all separate
concerns instead of an attached "shopping center" design, there is a need for additional
drive way space, and the landscaping which is included is almost entirely found in
narrow, live-foot wide planter areas or small tralTic islands. In planning slatT's view, this
represents only thc minimum effort to break up the predominance of paved area.
Grittman advised thal in pre-application meetings, the applicant's rcpresentatives
indicated that neithcr the applicant or the proposed occupants of the project are amenable
to a shopping center dcsign.
Another concern from staff is general design/green srace/ reception from pcople driving
by, and also arcas with a significant amount of traffic with I~lst food/convenicncc which
would be a cont1ict between driveways and parking. Stall did suggcst a slightly less
intense alternative, trying to reorient space so more landscaping could be added, avoid
dircct access. with wider drives trying to idcntify circulation patterns.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dennis 7ylla, Northco Real Estate, displayed an
enhanced drawing of the project tl1f thc mcmbers. He noted that back in April they
approached the City with their plan and felt at that time the City was intcrcstcd in their
site plan. 7ylla also noted the consulting of Kraus Anderson in regard to this site plan
and slates a rcgional siH:lown restaurant is committcd to this property as well as a
national fast food restaurant. a family owned C- store. additional retail as well as a car
wash. I Ie also stated that they chose this plan in accordance with the City code.
.
/ylla discussed setbacks noting there are limited setbacks and minor driveway setbacks,
which in affect are partly unique to the property. A setback variance is required due to an
odd configuration. He also noted that the landscaped islands are 7 ft., and the coverage is
18% above what is rcquired by the City. He also noted that the applicant has offered to
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
plant in the publie ROW as there is an abundance of ROWand felt this would improve
the site. ZyIla noted the wider I.) x 20 parking stalls as well. Lot coverage was discussed
once again which staff suggested was too intense. Zylla maintains it is not.
The applicant stated a proposed time frame of spring 2001. Frie also asked ifthere wcrc
issues in the staff report that were not discussed at previous meetings and Zylla stated that
landscaping was discussed at both meetings but not rcsolved.
Clint Herbst, Council Liaison, discussed the recent IDC meeting with concerns that staff
is not working well with applicants, and also he felt that the site plan proposed seemed to
be a contained site plan and very workable.
.
JcffO'Neill, Dcputy City Administrator, stated that there had been a lot of homework
down by the developer who madc major changes to the site plan with good ideas. Zylla
concurred but did state that the second plan was a I ittle more difficult as to issues such as
widening the drive isles and landscaping that could not be resolved. O'Neill stated that
with a PUD, the City should get more out of the plan in order to grant a PlJD. Grittman
also stated that the meetings were very construetive, but from staff standpoint these issues
had to be brought fl1fward to the Planning Commission for their input and that front
yard/side yard classification had to be determined by the Planning Commission as it is
clearly stated in City code. It is the responsibility of staff and City Planncr to bring thesc
issues forward to the Planning Commission.
Mikc Knisley, l)istyle Design, explained the organization of this sitc again and that it was
dcsigned to cncourage cross access. Knisley also stated they increased the width of drive
isles to accommodate large vehicles and there1llre the encroachment on cxisting propcrty.
Planning Commission ask cd how thc applicant would address the travel center as far as
semi trucks and drive isles. Zylla advised that they feel they have general drive isles but
it could be looked at and may nccd to bc changed to accommodate semi trucks. They
purposely proposed double head-in parking to accommodate semis as well. It was also
stated that there are 25 extra parking spaces to accommodate snow fall.
Chair Fric c10scd the public hearing.
.
O'Neill noted there are utilities in the area of the 16 foot portion of Cedar Street that the
applicant is asking llw vacation of and that the City Engineer would have to review and
approve this rcquest. There was some discussion regarding the timc frame on
improvements to Cedar Street and O'Neill stated the City is to be looking at this soon,
but it is not ncccssary as htr as this applicant is concerned. It was stated howcvcr that it
would make sense to look at the improvements along with this applicant's project. Chair
Frie asked Herbst to bring this matter up to the City Council.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBlr;;
SMITII TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE PUD CONCEPT STAGE BASED
ON A FINDING THAT THE DESIGN OF TI-IE SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR TIlE
LOCATION AND PROPOSED USES, AND THAT THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS QUALIFY FOR pun CONSIDERA nON UNDER THE CITY'S
pun ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL SITE
IMPROVEMENTS MEET THE REQUIRED ST"ANDARDS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCI':, AND RECOMMENDS "fIlAT IIIGI-IW A Y 25 BE TREATED AS THE
FRONT YARD FOR PURPOSES OF BUILDING SETBACKS. Motion carried
unanimously.
.&
Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing
building material standards in the business districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello (NAC)
Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting previous discussions by the Planning
Commission regarding this issue. Planning Commission is asked to conduct the public
hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance alnendment governing building and
design standards in the Business Districts.
Jeff O'Neill noted that there are certain buildings that would not mect this code and staff
would be creating a situation Il)f existing buildings that may deal with this issuc at a later
date. Danner trucking was one example. Again it was suggested that existing buildings
could be grand-fathered in and that the 250/c) of the building clause would apply as a one-
time expansion clause. It was discussed that this clause could be added to the language.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was
closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
GOVERNING BUILDING AND DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BUSINESS
DISTRICT BASED ON FINDINGS OUTLINED IN TIlE PLANNERS REPORT AND
BASED ON TilE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. EXISTING BUILDINGS
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND, UP TO 25%, UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE
PERM!'r. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Consideration of approval of a revised final plat and review final plans for development
of the Dodge Dealership
Jeff O'Neill stated that this is a request by the applicant t<.n approval of a revision to thc
original plat. Subsequent to Planning Commission and Council Approval of the
applicant's Conditional use permit, the developer rnadc a revision to thc plans. Under the
-6-
Planning COIl1Il1 ission M inlltcs - 11/08/00
.
new plan, the parking and display area is larger and the cntirc 1-94 frontage is occupied
by the dealership. Planning Commission is asked to consider allowing the original CUP
approval to apply to the reviscd plan.
Also, although the Planning Commission does not normally make recommcndations on
thc final piaL the new layout represcnts the basic layout of the reviscd final plat and the
Planning Commission was asked to review it. There was some thought of establishing
the two parcels via simple subdivision, however, after revicwing the plan and the
complications associated with combining various lots via simple subdivision, it is
recommended that the final plat simply bc revised to reflect the actual developmcnt
pattern. Staff did not receive the updatcd plan until late in the week theref()re a full site
revicw was not available. However, thc site plan was reviewed t(n adherencc to the 15%
rule and it does comply.
.
Steve Grittman noted a primary issue that arosc was that thc length of property along 1-94
and the northwcst propcrty line there are City drainage and utility cascments, and he
advised that to move curb/parking ofT the easements and placing util ities there would
require extensivc obstruction; therefore, the applicant is rcqucsting this be moved back
off the easement. It was noted that if 7 feet were to he taken off they may lose some
interior short parking segments instead of losing a long parking arca, possibly up to 6 or 7
spaces. which is a minimal impact. It was also noted that City Engincer and Public
Works are requesting that the Planning Commission adopt an ordinance for casement
requircl11cnts on perimeters. Also noted was that the City regularly allows curh within 5
ft., although the easement is 12 feet. 'fhe problem would be that if the City has to tcar up
curh for uti I ities, thc City is responsi hie for that cost.
Decision I.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITII AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGS'rEN TO APPROVE THE REVISED PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT
THE SUBDIVISION WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS THAT CONFORM TO
ORDINANCES. Motion carried unanimously.
Decision 2.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICJ-lARD
CARLSON TO ACCEPT THE REVISED PLAN WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
APPLICANT TO PROCESS A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUES'I'
CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING:
.
a, Conditions noted in the initial CUI' approval.
h, ('ompletion ofa revised/inal plat consistent with the site plan as prepared.
c ('it,V Council granting ofa lease to occ'upY easement or approval olthe vacation
o/utility easement along the northern edge ofl-ot 2. Rlock I.
Motion carried unanimously.
-7-
.
.
.
lL
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
lQ.,
Discussion regarding garaQ:e size versus house size standards.
There was a brief discussion regarding a possible issue with garage sizes exceeding house
sizes in the City. Fred Patch, Huilding OfficiaL stated that thcre have been applicants
who question how large their garage can be when coming in to apply for building
permits. lie stated that some applicants want to maximize the size, City ordinance states
up to 1000 sq. ft. combined, in all cases for garage space. Also noted was that the
principle use has to be larger than the accessory use in Residential Districts. Steve
Grittman gave examples of how other cities address this issue, stating that if garage sizes
arc allowed to bc larger than houses, it would then become an issue.
O'Neill stated that staff is looking fiJr direction from the Planning Commission regarding
this issue and the members asked that Grittman provide inflmnation on what thc City's
ordinance states, possibly adding language to it, and also information from other cities.
Grittman will provide this information at the December meeting.
Request for Planning Commission to Call For a Public HearinQ: - Consideration of an
ordinance amending thc Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, If) I 7, by
adding subsections (a) and (h), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in
residcntial districts.
Fred Patch, Building Official, advised the members that on September I 1 ,2000 the City
Council did not 1'i.)lIow thc recommendations of thc Planning Commission and dcnied the
Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow enforcement of ordinanccs restricting commercial
vehicles from rcsidential districts. Thc Council directed stail to look into allowances for
emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and the like.
The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts
(with some exceptions); however, alone the 9J)00 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is
insutTicient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment along with amendments
to the traffic ordinances (on-street parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character
of our residential districts while not lilniting nccessary commercial vehicle traffic serving
those districts.
JelT O'Neill stated that City Council lookcd at the draft ordinance preparcd, which was
intended to enfl1rcc the code, but City Council stated they did not want to adopt that
particular code but was not against an amcndment of some kind. It was noted that there
continues to be a problem with enforcement and this needs to be addresscd.
Chair Frie stated his frustration over council member Stumpf speaking as a taxpayer at
the City Council meeting without excusing himsclffrom his council seat. It was also
stated that Stumpf had the opportunity to attend the publ ic hcaring when it was held and
he did not. It was stated that this will give Stumpfanothcr chance to attend the public
hearing when it is hcld at the December mccting.
-8-
.
12A.
.
1213.
12C.
Planning Comlllission Minutcs - 11/08/00
The ordinance suhmitted addresses commercial vehicles on private propeliy, not on the
street. The Planning Commission did ask that the language stating "vehicles owned
and/or operated hy a governmental agency" be removed from the proposed ordinance
amendment. It was again stated that emergency vehicles could be added to this
amendment, but Council Liaison llerhst stated that it may not have to be added if there
are no comments at the next public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC IIEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMI':NDlNG MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5,
[DJ 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B), ESTABLlSIIING REGULATIONS
FOR COMMERCIAL VElIICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Motion carried
unanimously.
Update on Morrell Trucking violations.
.lefT O'Neill stated that nothing has happened at this time. He does have the status of the
violations which he will provide in the next planning commission agenda packet. He also
noted that the Planning Tech position has heen approved and they will be looking at
taking applications. 'I'his may aid in t(Jllow-up of these types of violations. He also
noted that the City Attorney does have the inflmllation on this matter but it is hack in
staff's hands.
Dick Frie stated his concern with the City C'ouncil denying the Planning Commission's
decision to deny Automaxx's request for a variance. Frie asked the members if
discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting was different than the
discussion held at the City Council meeting, as the Council Liaison, Clint I [erhst
motioned to deny the Planning Commission's request to deny this variance. lIerhst
stated that he agreed with the applicant that visihility was not good at that site and stated
that the City is trying to work hetter with property owners regarding these matters. Also
stated was the fact that access to the Automaxx site had changed with the ilnprovements
made to Highway 25, and Automaxx actually sits higher than General Rental. It was
noted that the issue may he Inore that the site was not as easily accessed once Highway
25 was completed. It was also noted that the husiness has now relocated to out of town.
Dick frie states that agenda items should be dealt with at the public hearings and not
commission memhers meeting with applicants on their personal time. They discussed
pros and cons of this. Frie also stated that council memhers, who are elected officials,
should he available to meet with applicants. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission memhers that it is up to the individual member as to whether they want to or
not.
. 12D. .lefT O'Neill advised that Dave Peterson Ford had provided a revised site plan, but now
they have expanded their storage area which is increased hy 1/4 to ] /3, and that the owner
has requested this without going through a formal amendment process. O'Neill noted
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
that initially there was an 80 foot setback, now they are within 5 ft. of Marvin Road,
noting that height relative to location needs Some setback. O'Neill noted that storage
areas can come no closer than 30' Ji'om the ROW. O'Neill asked for direction from the
Planning Commission and it was the consensus that as long as Ford meets the setbacks
they will accept this relatively minor modification. O'Neill stated he would address this
item via letter to Peterson Ford.
12.
Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEr-:TING AT 10 PM. Motion earried unanimously.
(~.~-
-10-