Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 10-14-2002 (Special Meeting) . . . AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday - October 14, 2002 5:30 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: S taiT: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and l,Ioyd Hilgart Clint Ilcrbst JeffCrNeill, fred Patch, and Steve (i-rittman ] . Call to order. 2. Consideration of allowing a 36' pylon sign to be incorporated into an approved planned unit development. Applicant: Dave Peterson Ford/JeiT Sell, West Metro 3. Consideration of amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development allowing for expansion of truck parking, bulk LP storage, service bay additions, paving for hulk waste product transport, sidewalks and landscaping. Applicant: Sunny fresh Foods 4. Adjourn - ]- . . . Special Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - 10/14/02 2. Consideration of allowin!! a 36' pylon sign to be incorporated into an approved planned unit development. Applicant: Dave Pctcrson Ford/Jeff Sell. West Mctro. (10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This is the topic of special meeting to be conducted by the Planning COlllmission immediately prior to the City Council meeting. This request for a Pylon Sign requires Planning Commission and Council Consideration because the sign proposed is higher and larger than the sign approved under the original PUD. Under the PUD sign plan, the pylon sign advertising used cars was allowed to remain. The sign that is being proposed to replace the used car pylon sign is larger and higher than the used car sign. Unfortunately, we do not have a precise record oi'the actual dimensions of the used car sign. The sign request calls for a 38' sign as measured approximately from the road from which it gains exposure (actual height from ground is 36'). Planning Commission and Council are asked to determine the acceptability of replacement of the previous used car sign, with a sign that is larger/higher than the used car sign and also higher than allowed by code (32' as measured from the ROW). This item is being considered at a special meeting because the owner of the new franchise, Jeff Sell. has already ordered the sign and will take delivery of it on Tuesday. r f approved, his ability to install the sign upon delivery versus waiting for review at the regular meeting will result in considerable cost savings. Sell has noted that he inadvertently ordered the sign prematurely thinking that a 36' high sign at this location was permissible given the height of the other grand fathered signs in the area. Early in the process staff int'(mlled Peterson and Sell that a replacement pylon sign was acceptable as long as it met the standards defined in the approved planned unit development. With regards to compliance with the PUD, the terms of the PUD have been met with one exception. The electronic reader board was elevated above the permitted height to the current level without City permit. Staff believes that the reader board height was increased because the display lot I ights interfered with the view of the sign. The other auto dealerships in the area recently developed, or will be installing, signs that are in compliance with the current sign height standards. Staff has received comment 1I:om one dealership requesting that the city maintain consistency with enj-'()rcement of the sign code. As a reminder, planned unit development projects allow the city to vary from site standards if there are other site improvements or benefits that result in a superior site plan. As you recalL the original PUD sign plan was approved with multiple pylons because there would be even more pylon signs in the area if the total area would have Special Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - 10/14/02 . been developed on a piecc-Incal basis. Planning Commission and Council need to determine whether or not the proposed pylon sign significantly erodes the benefit associated with consolidating the sign system via the original pu~ approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve installation of a pylon sign that exceeds the height and size of the sign approved under the original PUD and exceeds sign height ordinance standards, based on the finding that the proposed sign is consistent with the intent of the original Planned Unit Development. Under this alternative the PUD is allowed to increase sign height and size. 2. Motion to deny approval of a pylon sign that exceeds the height and size of the sign approved under the original pu~ and exceeds sign height ordinance standards, based on the finding that the proposed sign is not consistent with the original PUD. Planning Commission and Council should take this approach if it believes that installation of the sign as proposed is not consistent with the intent of the original PUD and would result in installation of a pylon sign in excess of city code without justification. . " -, . Motion to table the matter. STAFF RECOMMENOArlON This determination is somewhat subjective. On one hand it may be di11icult to show how the proposed sign is consistent with the PUD, especially when it is proposed to be higher than allowed by code. On the other hand, a pylon sign was allowed at this location and a higher/bigger sign may be justifiable in order to have the intended affect for the new franchise. The strength of this justification is somewhat tempered by the recent Planning Commission recommendation for denial of a zoning code amendment that would have allowed the Denny Hecker site to install a second pylon adveliising the KIA 1[anchise. SUPPOKrING DATA Copy of original PUD approval and associated meeting minutes. Sign permit application. . 2 . . t . FILE COpy q 1-0 I 2-- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDA Y, MAY 4, 1999 Members: Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith Staff: Steve Grittman, leffO'Neill and Fred Patch Absent: Richard Carlson and Council Liaison Clint Herbst 1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Consideration of aooroval of the minutes of the April 6. 1999 retwlar meeting and the Aoril 26. 1999 special meeting. ROD DRAGS TEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6, 1999 REGULAR MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. .., J. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. No items were added to the agenda. 4. Citizen Comment. There was no one present under citizen comment. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning district and a Preliminarv Plat to allow outdoor vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses and variances to the City's Sign Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello Ford. Steve Grittman presented the staff report on this item. The property is located at the southwest quadrant ofT.H. 25 and 1-94 and is affected by a project that would eliminate their property access from Oakwood Drive. The site currently contains a Ford dealership and it is proposed to add other services such as car rental, quick lube service and repair services. A conditional use permit is required for any Planned Unit Development and because the applicant is combining a number of pieces of land into one parcel a plat is required. The applicant is also requesting variances to the City's sign ordinance. Steve -1- rzA \ . Planning Commission Minutes. 5/4/99 . Grittman reviewed the variances requested noting that the variances were significantly over what the ordinance allows. · N umber of signs - The sign ordinance allows one free standing sign. The applicant is proposing four pylon signs in addition to building and entrance signs. Sign area - The square footage of the signs proposed by the applicant is 600 square feet while the ordinance allows 300 square feet of area. Setback - The applicant shows the setbacks at 5 and 7 feet while the ordinance requires 15 feet. Prohibited sign - One of the signs the applicant is proposing is an electronic message board. The City ordinance does not allow electronic message boards in any zoning district. . . The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development and of the preliminary plat. However, the staff did not recommend approval of the variances to the sign ordinance. Steve Grittman suggested that if the Planning Commission felt the sign plan should be approved it may be prudent to look at doing it as an amendment to the ordinance. In granting a variance the Planning Commission must find that requirements of the ordinance denied the property owner reasonable use of the property or created a physical hardship. . Robbie Smith asked about the landscaping requirements for the proposal. Steve Grittman explained how the number of trees and plantings were determined. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson, 1312 Prairie Creek Lane, stated that the number of signs requested is not excessive considering the amount of land area of the parcel. If the property was not being combined into one parcel but remained individual parcels each parcel would be entitled to one free standing sign. He felt the number of uses proposed for the site justified the number of signs that were being requested. Mr. Peterson also stated that plans to change T.H. 25 impacted his business as the state would not grant a right-in offT.H. 25 and added that signage is critical to his business. In this case since the business cannot be seen from the freeway, the signage is very important, especially the electronic message board. Mr. Peterson noted that currently the business has two free standing signs. In response to the landscaping concerns, Mr. Peterson stated that a portion of the area is a display lot and not a parking lot. He believes it is better not to have a lot of trees or plantings in the display area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . Robbie Smith noted that the request for additional signs was, in part, because of the change in access and asked if the applicant could meet the 15' setback requirements. The applicant stated he could comply with that requirement. The Planning Commission -2- 2--A . Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99 reviewed the proposal for compliance with parking requirements and pointed out that the parking lot area would need to be paved and curbed. The Planning Commission discussed the variances from the sign ordinance. Previously the Planning commission had discussed whether electronic message boards should be allowed and how they should be handled within the ordinance. The staff indicated that the sign ordinance needs some extensive work and they were not at a point to propose any amendment to the sign ordinance dealing with electronic signs. The applicant commented that combining the parcels into one severely restricted the amount of signage he could have for the business. He felt the way the sign ordinance was written was discriminatory towards large land parcels. Chair Frie responded that the City is required to apply the ordinance equally against all the parcels in the same zoning district. Robbie Smith commented that the electronic message board could flash multiple messages and thus reduce the number of signs needed. Dave Peterson concurred that this approach had merit and the Planning Commission discussed reasonable restrictions that could be placed on the use of an electronic message board. These included: 1) That it not be a flashing sign; 2) A time limit be placed on how often the message could change; and 3) That it not be a motion sign. Steve Grittman added that any amendment to the sign ordinance would require a public hearing. . ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A PUD AND FOR OUTDOOR SALES BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SITE PLAN MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND ALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE COMPLIED WITH. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROY POPILEK AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. MOTION CARRlED UNANIMOUSL Y. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DICK FRIE MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFIED SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCES BASED ON THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING UNIQUENESS OF THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE IMPACT OF THE ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATION. In further discussion Dick Frie explained that rather than use the amendment approach, . .... -.)- Z-A . Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99 the variance route would provide a quicker result for the applicant. He noted that the Planning Commission could approve the request based on an anticipated amendment to the ordinance but there is the possibility that an ordinance amendment might fail to pass. The sign plan proposed for approval would include the two existing signs which are grand fathered in and the use of one electronic message board for a total of three signs. Dick Frie stated that the restrictions on the property access was the basis for the finding to grant a variance. Since there was no second to the motion, Dick Frie rescinded his motion. There was additional discussion on the signage for the building and the free standing signs. . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCES AND A MODIFIED SIGN PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUILDING SIGNS AS PROPOSED, TWO PYLON SIGNS AND ONE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD BASED ON THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE NUMBER OF DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD: I) MESSAGE DISPLAYED FOR A LIMITED DURATION; 2) NO FLASHING SIGN AND 3) NO MOTION IN THE ELECTRONIC SIGN 4) THREE SECOND PAUSE BETWEEN MESSAGES REQUIRED. LED DISPLA Y REQUIRED. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Rod Dragsten suggested that the City staff look a revising the sign ordinance. . LA . . I 1 '. j '1 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Monticello Ford/Mercury Monticello, Minnesota H. Site Signage The site sign age will consist of the following: 1. Illuminated "Ford" brand pylon sign with a sign area of approximately 155 S.F. The sign box is 19'- 6" long x 8' - 2" high, with an overall sign height of 36'- 4". The pylon sign will be located on the highway 25 frontage in front of the proposed building. 2. Illuminated "Used Car" pylon sign will remain as is. Presently located on northeast corner of the site. 3. Illuminated "Quick Lane" pylon sign will be located on the southeast corner of the lot. This sign will be 20' - A" x 8' - A" wide. 4. Electronic Message pylon sign will be 2'- A" high x 12'- 8" long with two faces. This sign will be located along highway 25 frontage approximately 170 feet north of the southeast corner. 5. Illuminated "Quick Lane" entrance monument sign will be located at the south entrance on Sandberg Road. This sign is 4' - 8" high with a 2' - A" high x 8"- A" long sign cabinet. The existing "Ford" brand pylon sign located along Oakwood Drive will be removed. I. Building Signage The proposed building signage for this new facility will be as illustrated on the building elevations. There is no signage proposed on the existing building as part of this application. Future signage on the existing building will be limited to 200 S.F. on each building face. 7 2-5 Council Agenda - 5/1 0/99 . SD. Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District and a Preliminary Plat to allow outdoor vehicle sales and associated automotive sen'ice uses. Applicant: Monticello Ford. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Monticello Ford Mercury has requested approval of appropriate zoning permits to allow the expansion of the Peterson Ford site at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94. A Planned Unit Development is applied here, as the existing building will be remodeled for use as an auto body service facility, pemaps an independent operation. The new building will house the expanded Ford dealership operations, as well as other related uses which may also include contract or leasehold businesses such as rental or some type of auto services. All of the proposed uses are traditional automobile dealership uses. . The applicant's site plan illustrates a much larger building south of the existing building. The site would be extended to the edge of the new Chelsea Road extension and would include a new vehicle display area on the south third of the property. With the acquisition of the new parcels, a Preliminary Plat is also required to combine all of the properties into a single parcel. Planned Unit Development - Land Use The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in conformance with the B-3 Zoning designation applicable to this parcel. The site plan indicates that there will be display area throughout the site. However, separate areas have been set aside for customer parking adjacent to the new building and employee/customer parking along the west border of the property (Sandberg Road). Both the display and the parking lots are to be paved with bituminous surface and surrounded by curb. The Zoning Ordinance utilizes a minimum tree planting requirement based on the greater of (1) one tree per 1,000 square feet of building area, or (2) one tree per 50 feet of perimeter lot line. This results in a minimum tree planting requirement of approximately 48 trees, half of which may be credited by applying other landscaping elements such as shrubs and flowers. The landscape plan illustrates 2 existing trees and 24 new trees, as well as shrub planting areas around the building and in the most prominent locations around the site, such as entrances and display areas. The City Council is to consider the adequacy of the materials proposed in place of the 22 additional trees. . The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permits and the Plat. Of greater discussion before the Planning Commission was the sign package proposed by the applicant. Consisting of 4 pylon signs (two more than now exist), including an electronic message board sign, and more than 600 square feet of sign area (well over the 300 square foot threshhold), the sign proposal required several variances. 4 'LG . . . o Council Agenda - 5/1 0/99 Finding that the Trunk Highway 25 project had created a significant impact on the business, and particularly the access, the Planning Commission approved sign variances for all of the signage with the exception of one of the pylon signs. The electronic message board sign was approved with a condition that the sign did not show animated movement or flash. Staffs recommendation was to require that each image must stay on the board for at least three seconds to avoid the flashing or the impression of movement. The Planning Commission also directed staff to proceed with recommended Ordinance amendments, which would address large sites such as this one, and to allow electronic message board signs with regulation. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS: " Decision 1: Planned Unit Development 1. Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permits for a PUD and outdoor sales, based on a finding that the site plan meets the intent ot the Zoning District, and all performance standards of the Ordinance are complied with. 2. Motion to deny the CUPs based on findings to be established at the hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the CUPs subject to additional information. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat based on a finding that the proposal is consistent with dimensional requirements of the B-3 Zoning District. 2. Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat based on findings to be established at the hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the site improvements shown on the applicant's submission illustrate an appropriate level of development for the site and the use. Subject to the review comments of the City Engineer and other City staff, the Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary Plat are both recommended for approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan 5 tG . . . "*' Council Minutes - 5/10/99 B. Mr. Tom Giroux stated that he had paid his utility bill late, but the check was returned with a note stating that an additional $50 had been added to the bill. He eXplained that he was trying to work things out with his creditors but felt the additional fee charged by the City was too high. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller explained that the $50 charge is an administrative fee for the additional cost of mailing notices, publishing the public hearing notice, etc. The City Council explained that to remove the administrative charge after the assessment roll has been adopted would set a precedent, and they did not feel they could reduce the amount of the bill. C. Mr. Todd Banek noted that he is in the process of meeting with surrounding townships and the school district regarding youth sporting activities. He noted that he would also like to discuss the City's long-range planning for these types of activities. Council suggested that he first discuss the issue with the Parks Commission. 5. Consent agenda. A. Consideration of approving on-sale liquor license transfer-Joyner Lanes. Recommendation: Approve the transfer of the liquor license to Duane Lindenfelser, dba River City Lanes, contingent upon proof of adequate liquor liability insurance coverage. B. Consideration of resolution supporting the lOth anniversarv of Rivers of Hope organization. Recommendation: Adopt the proclamation supporting the Rivers of Hope's efforts and proclaiming May 15, 1999, as Rivers of Hope Day in honor of their 10th anniversary. C. Consideration of Change Order No. 20 City Proiect #93-14C. Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Recommendation: Approve Change Order No. 20 in the amount of $6,211. D. Consideration of a request for conditional use permit for a planned unit development within the B-3 zoning district and a preliminary plat to allow outdoor vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses. Applicant: Monticello Ford. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permits for a PUD and outdoor sales based on a finding that the site plan meets the intent of the zoning district, and all performance standards of the ordinance are complied with; and approve the preliminary plat based on a finding that the proposal is consistent with dimensional requirements of the B-3 zoning district. Approval is subject to the review comments of the City Engineer and other City staff. Page 4 LV , . . ,)t . 5. Continueu Public Ilcaring - Consiueration of a request for an amendment to a Planneu Unit Development within the 13-3 Zoning District to allow for an off-site auto sales/storagc lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. JelT O'Neill provided the staff report regarding the Monticello Ford reader board sign amcndment that was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting pending presentation of additional site data and additional information regarding proposed changes to the sign system. The applicant did obtain additional information regarding the sign system, however the data relating to the balance of the amendment had not been provided, therefore Planning Commission was asked to consider an amendment to the PUD that applies only to the sign system. In discussions with the applicant it was found that he is willing to reduce the total sign area or thc entire sign system in an amount equal to or greater than the added sign area requested with the reader board. Jeff O'Neill also stated that approving the amendment to the CUP relating to increasing the sign of reader board will not result in an increase of the total sign area proposed. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Johnson, Monticello Ford, addressed the commission explaining the reduction in building signs and trading one for the other. He also provided a display showing the entire property and how it relates in size to the reader board. Chair Frie c10scd the public hearing. The members further discussed concerns of future reader boards 011 Highway 25 and regulating the sizes, and the members were in agreement on placing a "cap" on the size of reader boards. Dan Licht stated that because this particular reader board is in a PUD and the sign is appropriate I<)f this site, it does not set precedence for future signs. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN SYSTEM I'ORTION OF THE PUD, AMENDMENT APPROVED CALLS FOR EXPANDING TI-IE READER BOARD AREA FROM 26 SQUARE FEET TO 70 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH A REDUCTION IN OTHER SIGN AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 44 SQUARE FEET, MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN PORTION OF THE CUI' IS .JUSTIFIED BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED WILL NOT RESULT IN A SIGN SYSTEM THAT WILL UNDEI{MINE THE INTENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING SIGNAGE IN TilE HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR. ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE "UD AI'I'ROV AL GRANTED IN MAY 1999 MUST BE MET. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. r ( ~"~ vi fProJ,J) 10'0 (( ') Lb PC. (Yliru.tf(S l'l-f(-qq To: City Council and Planning Commission . from: JefT O'Neill, Deputy Administrator/Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2002 - 10:30 AM Regarding: Site Plan Information Has Not Arrived t()r Staff Review: Sunny Fresh Planned Unit Development As you know a special meeting of the Planning Commission has been scheduled (10/14/02) immediately prior to the City Council meeting for review of a request for expansion of the Sunny Fresh facility, This is to let you know that we have not received a site plan in time to review it and place it in the CC/PC inflmnation packets, Staff did received a preliminary a site plan late in the review cycle but just in time for us to prepare a report for the special meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. However, on Thursday afternoon Dennis Darnell of Sunny Fresh int(mned staff that they were making significant changes to the plan, StalTwithheld preparation ofa report pending delivery of the new plan, On Friday morning I was told that a plan will be delivered to City Ilalllate morning which docs not give us enough time to prepare a report and place it in the packet for delivery on Friday, If we get the report on Friday, we will review it and deliver it to you directly on Monday, Staff hopes that you have time to review the information in time fl.)r the meeting, . If you should have any questions, please call. .