Planning Commission Minutes 05-06-2008
Commissioners:
Council Liaison
Staff:
Call to order.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 6th, 2008
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Susie Wojchouski
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes of April 1st, 2008.
Commissioner Voight noted the misspelling of his name on page 3 of the minutes.
•
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF APRIL 1, 2008.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
3. Consideration of adding items to the a eg_ nda.
Commissioner Gabler requested update on Warnert and Broadway Market
projects.
Chairman Dragsten asked for a legislative update on Group Homes.
4. Citizen Comments.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to section 3-2[B] of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance re ug lating R-lA Design Standards. Applicant:
Keyland Homes.
Schumann presented the staff report, stating that in May of 2002, the City of
Monticello approved a final plat and rezoning for the Hillside Farm project.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Hillside Farm is a Planned Unit Development project consisting of 84 single-
family lots. The plat is being developed in four phases. Schumann stated that the
PUD approval allowed the plat to be developed with R-1 lot sizes, but application
of R-lA design standards. Under the original approval, the developer did not ask
for any variation or relaxation of the R-lA design standards.
Schumann noted that since that original approval, the developer has requested one
amendment to the PUD. The amendment applied to the entire development and
relaxed the foundation square footage requirements for the homes. That
amendment was approved by the City.
Schumann explained that the current application for amendment is being
requested by the builder and owner of all lots within only the first and second
phases of the Hillside Farm development. Key Land Homes is requesting that the
City consider relaxing only one specific provision of the R-lA standards.
Schumann stated that the provision reads that no portion of any garage space may
be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the
principal single-family use.
Schumann indicated that the house-forward ordinance provision was designed to
strengthen the step-up housing product, by creating a more attractive streetscape
with the house being the more prominent feature.
The applicant is requesting that this section of the R-lA standards be waived for
the remaining six (6) vacant lots in the 1St and 2nd Additions.
Schumann stated that of the 28 homes already constructed, only six (6) meet the
ordinance standard above. She indicated that Hillside Farm was the first
development to which the R-lA Zoning Standards applied, which may explain the
lack of proper application of design standards.
Schumann noted that the Planning Commission is asked to consider this
amendment as it applies only the 1St and 2nd Additions. Schumann commented
that staff is recommending approval of the amendment as 28 of 34 homes are
already constructed, of which only 6 comply with the ordinance. She also stated
that it is staff's belief that the homes already built in Hillside Farm meet the intent
of the R-lA ordinance, which is to create step-up housing. Given the applicant's
compliance with other R-1 A code requirements (including foundation square
footage, finished square footage and fagade improvements) staff believes that
allowing the balance of the homes to be constructed consistent with the initia128
would not significantly impair the intent of the Hillside Farm PUD.
Hilgart inquired what the required roof pitch was for Hillside Farm. Schumann
responded hat she believed it to be 6:12.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Spartz inquired whether the Commission had the ability to open up the entire
development for review as a result of this request for amendment. Planner
Grittman answered that the Commission did have that ability.
Gabler inquired whether the developer has covenants and whether they cover the
standards. Schumann stated that the development agreement covers R-lA and is
recorded at County, but that she can't say whether the developer instituted private
covenants.
Chairman Dragsten asked how this oversight happened and if there are processes
in place to take care of this in the future.
Grittman noted Hillside Farm is technically zoned R-l. However, the PUD
applied the R-lA design standards.
Schumann referred to the Planning Commission's recent discussion on PUD
amendments and stated that PUD actually requires final architectural drawings for
all buildings within a PUD. She commented that at the time Hillside Farm came
through, that application requirement was not strictly followed. Dragsten stated
even in the case that it is provided, who follows up on conformance.
Schumann stated that it is now the process that the approved plans are given to the
Building Department in order to compare the approved PUD to building permit.
Dragsten asked how many developments maybe in a similar situation. Schumann
replied that there are probably a handful. Dragsten asked if everything in place to
now prevent this. Schumann stated that she believes so. Girttman stated that the
application standards are held to a much more rigorous process and the Building
Department is now built into the planning review process.
Dragsten asked if all other design standards are being followed in Hillside Farm.
Anderson noted that the Building Department was short-staffed at the time
development was at its peak and the department was at that time, just trying to
keep up with building end. Information now flows better given the current system
of review and communication.
Dragsten asked if everything is up to date in terms of reviewing requirements.
Anderson stated that the Building Department now very actively looks through
those standards.
Spartz asked if the request for waiver is that to allow Keyland to continue moving
beyond 5', and if they are requesting something in particular in terms of number
beyond 5'.
.7
3
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Schumann stated that the amendment to PUD applies the waiver to balance of 6
lots. The applicant has not requested a specific amount beyond the 5'. It is at the
Commission's discretion. Schumann restated that intent of the district to create a
more attractive streetscape.
Spartz asked if it is known what the farthest forward garage measurement is.
Anderson suggested perhaps 16-20 feet. Applicant stated that it is most likely
20'.
Wojchouski asked Anderson to clarify that the square footage was on main floor
and not inclusive of second story.
Anderson responded that he wasn't involved in the initial part of the process. His
understanding was that the intent was to get larger two-stories. Anderson
described other plans and what might be needed to achieve the required square
footages.
Schumann noted that the ordinance requirements for R-lA are all designed to
work together. If applied together, it is most likely that R-lA developments
wouldn't have had any splits as most splits wouldn't meet the 5' rule. However,
when you miss one, you can end up with all of the variations. She noted the
previously approved amendment where square footage would correspond to the
style.
Voight commented that split-entry styles don't leave much ability to expand in
terms of square footage, where the two story provides that ability. He noted that
there is then a large difference in the available amount of square footage that is
possible to finish.
Anderson noted that the market influences the type of house that is built, as well.
Hilgart asked when this was caught by staff. Schumann stated that she was
unsure of the exact date, but it was most likely six months ago.
Hilgart asked if any that were any homes permitted after the catch that don't meet
the 5' rule. Schumann stated that she did not believe so.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Jason Penaz, 5549 Badger, addressed the Commission, stating that he is
concerned about the split entry homes that went in recently. He commented that
he was the first homeowner in the development and at that times, houses were
promised to be two-stories and large ramblers. Nothing was said about splits.
Ron Long, the realtor was asked about whether any splits would be allowed. He
. indicated that was not the type of development they were seeking to build. He
stated that most homeowners in the development are concerned about this same
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
issue. Penaz noted that the prices and finished square footage between two stories
and splits are very different. Penaz recommended putting put the cap on the
remaining 61ots such that splits not be allowed. He noted a similar situation with
River Forest, noting that when times are tough, it seems that builder make the
switch to build smaller homes.
Spartz asked if there Penaz sees a problem with garages being off-set. Penaz
stated that the issue is more about the value and style of homes. Penaz reaffirmed
that the style should be the same as what was initiated.
Dragsten stated that the standards are the same for the development, they haven't
changed. Originally, there was the ability to have some splits, but the developer's
their initial marketing was that they didn't want it.
Hilgart asked Penaz if he has covenant documents. Penaz stated that he did not
believe there were covenants.
Voight asked Schumann were the six lots are within the development. Schumann
stated that the applicant can point them out on the plat map.
Pat Couette, 5866 Badger Street, stated to the Commission that he believes that
the two splits are empty.
Terry Long, representing Keyland Homes made himself available for questions.
Long stated that both split homes are occupied.
Voight asked Long to identify the remaining six lots. Long stated that there is one
on Badger, the rest are on Elk Avenue.
Long stated that in regard to Commissioner Hilgart's question on roof pitch, he
believed that the front facing roof pitches are to be 8:12, the rest are 6:12. Hilgart
asked if Long is aware of any covenants. Long stated that there are none to his
knowledge; none have been provided by the developer.
Long stated that in other developments, the developer has to sign off on the
permits. Long indicated that there was no intent to put splits on Elk Avenue. It
was a marketing decision to put splits against the trees. Long apologized for
missing the 5' ordinance requirement, commenting that Keyland was careful to
meet the other requirements. Keyland as a builder is trying to make the
development work. It wasn't the intent to change the design and quality of
homes. He noted that the splits in Hillside are larger than the basic requirements.
Long explained that there are remaining unsold homes; one meets the criteria and
one does not.
• Spartz stated that he agrees with Dragsten that it is a nice development. He
inquired that if this amendment were to move forward, is there a measurement on
5
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
i the garage forward Keyland would like to seek. Long explained that some of the
largest homes are at a 12' setback on the garage. Dragsten asked if 12' is
something Keyland can work with. Long responded that Keyland can work with
whatever the City can approve. Long explained that application of the 5' or less
rule does create a larger, more expensive home.
Spartz commented that he doesn't know that they' threshold has as much to do
with value of the neighborhood as the entire style and not allowing any split entry
homes.
Anderson noted that Carlisle Village has a requirement for developer review of
building permit. In that case, the developer signed plans that do not meet the
criteria. So in some cases, that check and balance system may not work.
David Brown, 5926 Badger Street, explained that he was also told by the realtor
there would be no splits. He stated that he confused regarding the design
standards that apply. He indicated that he thought he was moving into ahigh-end
neighborhood.
Dragsten stated that he wanted to make clear that when originally approved, there
was the ability to put in splits. The developer had indicated a marketing direction,
but they still had that ability.
• Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Hilgart stated that he doesn't believe the garage forward has that much to with the
quality of the house as the size. He stated that he was disappointed with the splits
that were built as believes the roof pitch requirement wasn't met and that they
may not meet the other design standards. He stated that he is willing to flex on
the garage forward, but recommended that no splits be allowed. Spartz agreed.
Gabler stated that the Commission is just here to talk about 6 remaining lots.
Dragsten stated that the Commission could make amendments to carry through to
the 1St and 2nd Additions.
Dragsten confirmed that the only way to address lots in the 3`d and 4th is to open
another application.
Schumann confirmed that the developer who owns the lots in 3`d and Ott' would
need to open the balance up for discussion. The Commissioners had a brief
discussion on flexibilities to design that might be allowed with a future
amendment.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR HILLSIDE
FARM 1sT AND 2ND ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDING BASED ON A
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
FINDING THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE THAT THE CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE R-lA ZONING, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
• NO SPLIT ENTRY HOMES BE ALLOWED ON THE BALANCE OF
THE LOTS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
• THE GARAGE SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 12' BEYOND
THE FONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOME ITSELF FOR THE
BALANCE OF THE LOTS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Sales as related to an Outdoor Volleyball Facility in a B-4 (Regional
Business, District.
Planner Grittman provided the staff report, illustrating the location of the
proposed area of the volleyball court, which is in the proposed expansion area for
the bowling facility's banquet space. The applicant is seeking a CUP for outdoor
sales as related to a request for volleyball courts with both evening and daytime
hour volleyball leagues. The application request would allow use until 11:00 PM.
Grittman stated that the ordinance regulates specific requirements for outdoor
sales, which he reviewed. The use is required to be fenced and screened from
view of abutting residential properties, which there are in this case. Lighting is
required to be shielded from public view and from neighboring residential. Sales
areas must be surfaced or grassed to control dust. Finally, Grittman stated that the
procedural requirements of the CUP process must be met.
Grittman explained that noise and lighting are two of the major issues in terms of
intrusion to neighboring properties. In this case, the location of courts would be
screened primarily by the building itself. Residences are to the north and
northwest of the site. The applicant is proposing to light the court with wall pack
lighting, not free-standing light fixtures. Grittman indicated that the staff report
recommends that if this facility finds that they do not have adequate lighting, they
would need to come back for amendment. In that case, staff would recommend
shorter hours of operation as it will be difficult to screen the light from residential
properties. Grittman stated that the applicant is proposing to fence in the play
area with a black coated chain link fence. In a staff meeting with the applicant,
Grittman noted that the applicant had also indicated that they may potentially also
use netting to protect loose balls. They are also proposing to fence in the grass
area for lawn games.
•
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
Grittman commented that staff believes that if the application is to be approved, it
should be approved with conditions. The conditions include that the applicant
consider netting, that the hours of operation be limited to those proposed by the
applicant, and that any additional lighting request beyond that proposed require an
amendment. Additionally, upon construction of phase two of the building, the
conditional use permit for this use would expire. A final condition requires that
any fence in excess of 6' needs a building permit.
Voight referenced the landscaping on the site, noting that there are no changes
proposed and it appears that some landscaping may still need to be completed.
Grittman stated that part of the landscaping may need to be completed as part of
phase 2. Staff would follow up on original landscaping requirements during a
spring review. Grittman stated that all landscaping required under the original
approval would still be required.
Voight confirmed that they are not proposing any additional lighting. Grittman
replied that they have not proposed any additional free-standing lights, but instead
additional wall-park lighting, for which they have provided a photometric plan.
Hilgart asked if there are any similar uses around town in terms of hours of
operation. Grittman replied that outside Hawk's, which is adjacent to commercial
property, he is not familiar with any. Hilgart expressed concern about the hours
of operation at 11:00 PM.
Gabler asked how the noise ordinance comes in to play. Grittman stated that
noise complaints would be treated as nuisance and would be subject to citation
and prosecution. If it became an issue, the Commission could reconvene to
reconsider permit.
Voight asked about wall pack lighting, as the staff report noted that any additional
lighting would need an amendment to PUD. Grittman stated that the exhibit
should reference the lighting as proposed with this application. Voight
commented that he would agree on further restricting the hours and go a step
farther to recommend no additional lighting other than what currently exists.
Chairman Dragsten opened the pubic hearing.
Denise Schnabel, 3758 Hayward Court South, addressed the Commission.
Schnabel stated that her home backs up to this property. She stated that she is
strongly opposed to this request as noise, garbage, and light issues are already
something that they deal with, and this use will increase those problems.
Schnabel noted that the neighborhood is predominantly young families, with
young children who go to bed much earlier than 9:00 PM.
Schnabel indicated that the fence that was put up is only 8' and stops 1/3 of the
way into her property. The trees do not block anything. Schnabel stated that City
8
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
i officials were out looking at the fence the previous day. She explained that due to
where the fence stops, she has people trespassing in her yard. She noted that she
had been told the previous evening that the fence was temporary for everyone and
would be removed when trees were larger. Schnabel stated that was not what she
had been told originally. Schnabel stated that she came to Monticello for a quiet,
safe neighborhood. Schnabel explained that the tone and types of conversation at
the bowling alley is not appropriate for young children. She stated that she felt
there were a lot of broken promises already and that an approval on this would
make the problems a bigger issue.
Dragsten asked if Schnabel knew that the area to the south of her property was
designated as commercial. Schnabel stated that she was told that it was not yet
zoned.
Voight indicated that he could clarify the zoning issue. As the second home in the
neighborhood, it was in the process of being rezoned from agricultural to
commercial. Dragsten and Voight noted that the land use in the comprehensive
plan was shown as commercial.
Christine Alberts, 3596 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission. Alberts stated
that her home is on the south side of the bowling alley and would be more
affected than most. Alberts commented that light glare would primarily be an
• issue and that she was also concerned about whistles and noise. Alberts indicated
that she is opposed to a bar area outdoors. Alberts stated that she also did not
know that the fence was temporary and also has people going through her yard.
Alberts inquired about City ordinance regarding hours of operation. Grittman
stated that typical commercial codes allow permitted outdoor uses unti19:00 PM.
Alberts asked how many days each week the applicant is requesting for this
activity. Dragsten responded that the applicant is requesting six days.
Dragsten asked for the location of Alberts home from School Boulevard. Alberts
responded that she is to the left, which is right behind where the court is proposed.
Spartz asked if the people going through the yards are going home or to the
bowling alley. Alberts replied that it is both.
Brad Weske, 3647 Redford Lane stated that with the economy, he realizes that
businesses are trying to bring in business to make a profit. If approved, he
commented that he would ask for fencing as high as the building, with netting to
eliminate sound and light glare. He also requested that River City be required to
finish at 9:00 on weekdays. Weske commented that he is concerned about noise
from garbage removal at 6:00 PM. He noted that his home is across the street,
and this activity wakes them up. He suggested that as there is an existing noise
problem, there needs to be strict guidelines if this is to be approved. Weske
suggested a three month review period for the use.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
r~
\J
Spartz asked Weske if garbage trucks are coming at 6:00 AM. Weske confirmed.
Spartz stated that he would like to have this addressed as they are not supposed to
come until 7:00 PM.
Bryan Pederson, 3644 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission. He stated that he
lives behind garbage area. He noted that noise is a problem. As someone not too
far removed from this type of activity. The vinyl fencing will not act as any kind
of noise screening. Betterson commented it might be more practical to deny the
request rather than have police called every night.
John Kittle 3636 Redford, addressed the Commission. Kittle stated that he is
directly behind garbage enclosure. He explained that garbage blows beneath the
fence. He commented on additional light and noise and stated that the use of their
deck and keeping their windows open had become a problem. He noted that
River City has not had one full year of operation before this request, including a
summer, to see what problems the existing facility will cause.
Mike Brandt, 3529 Redford Lane, stated that he echoed the concerns of those who
had already spoken. Brandt commented that traffic has increased and speeds have
increased. The bowling alley has not been good for the neighborhood.
• Don Brummond 3456 Redford Lane, addressed the Commission. Brummond
stated that he likes the business and commented that River City runs a nice
business. Brummond stated that he didn't come to complain, however, traffic and
noise are an existing problem. Although there may not be a way to address the
noise issue, noted he would try to support the local business, but limit the hours of
operation. He suggested that the City consider shutting cul-de-sac or perhaps a
one-way.
Brandt cited the cul-de-sc at Redford as a major problem. He noted that it is
convenient, but becomes a hang out and magnet for drag-racing.
Mark Parnell, applicant and co-owner addressed the Commission. Parnell stated
that as they had never done volleyball, selected an hour that seemed reasonable.
Okay with limiting the hours of operation. Parnell noted that the corner is mostly
blocked by the building. He commented that fencing proposed is at 6' with
netting to the building line. He stated that lighting is proposed to be hooded with
reflective shield. As for noise from garbage, he apologized and stated that could
be changed. He noted that they could make adjustments where possible. Parnell
requested that residents come over, as they will try to address neighbor concerns.
Parnell stated that there were a lot of comments and questions from community
on whether they would be doing volleyball.
r~
U
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Parnell stated that the area behind is designated for future parking, and area in
front of School Boulevard is setback. Other areas are needed for existing parking.
Parnell stated that for those reasons, options for where to put the court are limited.
Parnell stated that in terms of cutting around fences, 90% of the time, these are
not people going to a parked car, these are your neighbors. He suggested that
putting up signage at end offences may be an option.
Wojchouski inquired whether the Council members who were out had any
remedies to the problem. Parnell commented that the fence was put up 1' back
from property lines. Parnell stated that he also did not know the fence was
temporary. He stated that he is not interested in the fence being removed.
Alberts asked if outdoor bar sales would be within chain link fence area. Parnell
answered that there are no outside bar sales. Sales would be inside, but they
would be able to take a plastic cup out. Parnell commented that is for control
purposes. Alberts asked if the fence could be extended, which would make a
difference for their backyard. Dragsten commented that would be a Council
decision. Dragsten confirmed that the Council was not at her home previously.
Voight asked Parnell about fencing and screening. Parnell responded that to
establish some sort of gating, they would do 6-8' high fence. Above that, they are
looking at netting that could possibly retract. He stated that it will do some
amount of light screening.
Dragsten asked Parnell if he had reviewed Exhibit Z. Parnell stated that he is
aware of them and does not have any problem with them.
Denise Schnabel addressed the Commission, stating that as she is on the back side
of the facility, she is not really concerned about lighting, but noise is a major
concern. She stated that she still believes 9:00 PM is too late. A majority of the
young children in the neighborhood are in bed before that.
Dragsten confirmed that liquor would not be served outside. Parnell confirmed
that there would be no sale of liquor outside the building. Dragsten noted that for
restrooms, they would use those inside the facility. Parnell confirmed that
restrooms are immediately inside the facility. Dragsten inquired whether there
would be any music. Parnell stated that there would not be and there would not
be any regulation whistles.
Brian Pederson commented that in terms of the gates, would there be security to
make sure that people aren't trespassing and littering. He stated that his question
is who will be policing the facility. Parnell answered that there would be a River
City representative out there at all times. They will do their best to control that
kind of behavior.
11
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Gabler asked Parnell if the days need to be Monday-Friday. Parnell indicated that
as they are just getting into this, they do not know what the most highly demanded
days will be. He stated that he suspects they will need a minimum of four days of
activity.
Lois Kittle, 3636 Redford Lane, commented to the Commission that neighbors are
not able to relax in their own backyards due to noise and light concerns.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Gabler stated that she would like to table the item for 30 days to allow the
applicant to address the public and Commission's concerns.
Spartz stated that he is not in favor of moving forward. Although Mr. Parnell is
sincere about listening to resident concerns, and this is a successful a business he
has enjoyed, he thinks it is important to address the neighbor's concerns. In terms
of a timeline, this maybe something to think about for spring of next year and
correct the issues that exist now.
Hilgart stated that he is struggling hard on this. He stated that he is all for
business, but is concerned about the rights of those around the facility. He stated
that he is in agreement with Mr. Spartz.
• Voight stated that on one hand, he agrees with Commissioner Spartz and Hilgart.
The City needs to review the issues that exist now. At the same time, the land use
did say commercial. He stated that. he has concerns about denying something
when perhaps more research should have been completed on the part of the
homeowners. Voight also noted that he would like the City to consider the
comments regarding Redford Lane.
Spartz encouraged residents to contact River City about their concerns. If they do
not know about the concerns, they are unable to address the,
Dragsten inquired if the Commissioners would consider a temporary permit.
Voight stated that he would be open to that. Gabler noted that the applicant could
put all the money into constructing the courts, but then the Commission could
deny extension of the permit. Hilgart stated that in that case, he would support
severely limiting the hours.
Hilgart asked Schnabel if the noise in continuous. She stated that the noise in the
evening is continuous until closing. While weekdays maybe lighter than
weekends, it is continuous. Hilgart stated that he wouldn't recommend anything
beyond 9:00 PM, even perhaps 8:00 PM on weeknights. Gabler suggested
perhaps 5:00 - 8:00 PM.
•
12
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Voight commented that restricting too far may not allow the applicant a chance to
succeed. Gabler stated that she understands, she is just trying to find a balance.
Voight stated that the noise outside the court and other noise from customers is
not within Parnell's control.
Spartz stated that he is not in favor of the temporary. He stated that he is not
against moving the business forward, but next spring may be a better fit in terms
of resolving some of the existing issues first. Gabler agreed.
Hilgart inquired if Parnell has a timeline for when the banquet center will be built.
Parnell responded two years. Hilgart asked if the cost of building the facility
versus two years of volleyball will be worth it. Parnell responded that it is
difficult to project.
Wojchouski noted that if the Commissioner is going to move forward, perhaps it
could be recommended that the fence be improved for screening. Gabler
commented that perhaps then aesthetic come into play. Wojchouski noted than
chain link is not going to prevent noise.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL INTENSIFY CONCERNS
WITH NOISE, LIGHTING AND TRESPASSING.
Grittman clarified that Spartz's motion is based on the idea that the proposed use
will make these items worse. Spartz also noted it will be important to try to
address existing issues. Dragsten noted that Commission cannot deny based on
existing problems.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED
-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS DRAGSTEN AND VOIGHT IN DISSENT.
Dragsten noted that if the request is denied by the City Council, the applicant can
bring the request back 6 months from now. Council will make the final decision.
Hilgart encouraged residents to attend the Council meeting.
Brummond asked if there was anything official that needs to be done in terms of
the road request. Dragsten noted that it had been added to the commission's
agenda.
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage accessory to a government utility building in a B-4 (Regional Business)
District.
•
13
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
• Planner Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the proposed storage area.
He explained that the proposed outdoor storage area is accessory to a fiber utility
building and will be used for the storage of satellite technology.
Grittman noted that the code requires these types of areas to be surfaced to control
dust. This area will be surfaced with class five. The ordinance also requires that
the area be screened from adjacent residential property. The area will be screened
with evergreen shrubs, and additional plantings will be placed along existing
dense tree buffer along south boundary line. Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Gabler asked why there is no schematic of the building. Grittman responded that
the design is still being formulated. Gabler asked if the building is being funded
by the revenue bonds. Grittman responded that he did not know.
Wojchouski confirmed the exact location of the building.
Dragsten inquired if this is an accessory use. Grittman noted that the building
will be constructed as part of the project. Schumann noted that the public utility
building is a permitted use in the B-4 district. Dragsten asked if there is any
lighting for the outdoor facility. Grittman answered that there is no lighting
proposed. Dragsten confirmed that the storage was for satellites only. Schumann
confirmed that any other outdoor storage would be incidental and temporary.
Schumann noted that 200 notices regarding this hearing were sent directly to Mr.
Kjellberg as property owner to distribute.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AS
SUBMITTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
8. Warnert and Broadway Market Update
Schumann reported that there have been no formal applications for either
property.
9. Group Home Legislative Action
Schumann reported that she had heard of no action, but that she would check with
the City Attorney. Grittman clarified that cities of the first class are able to
14
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/08
regulate by distance under State Statute. However, other cities do not have that
ability.
10. Redford Lane
Schumann stated that she would speak with the City Engineer about this item.
Schumann noted that a joint workshop on the Transportation Plan had been set for
June 9~` at 5:00 PM.
Voight also recommended that upon resolution of items relating to the fence at
River City, a letter should be sent to the adjoining residents.
11. Adjourn
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
f ~ ~(
~,
\_
Record '
l~
•
15