Planning Commission Minutes 08-05-2008r~
u
Commissioners Present:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Call to order.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008
6:00 PM
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 declared a quorum of the Commission.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes of June 3rd, 2008 and July 1St, 2008.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3'~, 2008.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRRIED, 5-0.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 1St, 2008.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Commissioner Dragsten requested an update on the commercial vehicle amendment recently
considered by the Planning Commission.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Comprehensive Sig_ri Plan
for amulti-tenant retail facility in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: Scenic Sign
Planner Grittman presented the staff report for the item. The request is for a Conditional Use
Permit for a comprehensive sign plan for amulti-tenant retail facility.
Providing background for the request, Grittman indicated that Liberty Tax had constructed a sign
on the retail building. Upon review, there was some concern at the time that a variance was
needed. After further research, it was determined that this retail center does meet the zoning
ordinance definition of a shopping center. As a result, the sign placed fits within the scope of
allowable uses under a Conditional Use Permit.
Grittman stated that the sign itself is relatively small, and has been installed. The sign is
approximately 2' x 13'. The sign therefore meets sign criteria and all signage on the building
meets code requirements. It was noted that the building was developed before the current sign
• code was in place, which is why there is not currently a CUP in place. Grittman stated that staff
is recommending approval of the CUP.
Spartz inquired what sign the conditional use permit would apply to. Grittman responded that the
CUP is for the whole building. The Liberty Tax sign precipitated the request.
Schumann noted that Scenic Sign had gone through DAT and through miscommunication, Scenic
Sign believed that they had the necessary approvals needed to place the sign, which is why the
sign has already been installed.
Grittman noted that the property owner can continue to add signage as long as they meet the 208
square foot maximum requirement. In that case, if the CUP is approved, the property owner
would just need a sign permit. They do not have to come back through the public hearing
process.
Hilgart asked if a building is required to have a CUP at all times for signage. Grittman replied
that if it is amulti-tenant facility, and meets definition of a shopping center, then it would need a
CUP. Otherwise, they would be allowed only one sign, which doesn't work very well for multi-
tenant buildings. The reasoning for the conditional use permit is that it gives the City the
opportunity review the signage plan comprehensively.
Hilgart asked if the total signage allowed is different if there is one user versus multiple users.
Grittman responded that the requirements are more flexible under this arrangement. He noted
that there is also a maximum sign allowance. Different restrictions come into play depending on
• the number of tenants. Dragsten noted that in the past, the City had also given some flexibility
for additional signage because of multiple frontages.
Dragsten inquired if DAT had reviewed the lighting, as this property is in the CCD. Grittman
stated that typically, DAT has objected to the light box style of signage. In this case, the letters
are individually lit letters. Dragsten noted that there is a cabinet sign next to this one. Grittman
indicated that sign was grandfathered in.
Gabler asked why this building is a defined a shopping center. Grittman stated that the defmition
is based on the number of tenants.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to Sideyard Setback for Driveway
Encroachment in an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) District. Applicant: Posusta Glen
• Planner Grittman presented the staff report for the item. The applicant is seeking approval for a
variance from parking setback requirements to allow for additional off-street parking at 403 Elm
Street. The site itself is zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential. Grittman indicated that
the applicant is proposing to add additional off-street parking to the site by expanding the existing
driveway adjacent to the attached garage and into the side yard on the north side of the garage.
2
To the north of the property is the right of way for 4~' Street. This street is an un-built right of
way that is currently occupied by private driveway and landscaping improvements under a license
granted to the townhouse project to the north.
Grittman stated that the applicant has noted that the garage currently sits approximately eight (8)
feet from the side property line. Section 3-S.D.9.g of the Zoning Ordinance requires at least a
three (3) foot setback from the side yard property line for driveways in residential districts. In
order to construct a driveway extension wide enough to allow for parking of vehicles, the
applicant would have to encroach into the required side yard setback. Therefore, Grittman stated
that the applicant is seeking a variance from the three (3) foot driveway setback requirement.
Grittman explained that under standard conditions, such parking areas are allowed in a corner
side yard, with the requirement that they meet the setbacks and are screened with landscaping
and/or decorative fencing.
Grittman noted that if approved as proposed, the applicant would also need a license agreement
with the City to occupy this portion of the right of way.
Grittman stated that the Planning Commission is required to find that there is a condition of the
property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. Without the variance,
the applicant would not be able to put the property to reasonable use. In this case, the applicant
has a two car garage and driveway to Elm Street. There is other storage allowance that could be
provided in the rear as the City passed an ordinance to allow that type of storage. Grittman
indicated that the driveway itself would also be acceptable, if it did not encroach into the right of
way. He stated that it is planning staff's opinion that this is a typical single family home and has
driveway and garage that meets code requirements. Staff do not believe there is a hardship
• present and do not recommend the variance.
However, Grittman stated that it should be noted that the applicant is trying to get additional
parking off street. In a meeting with applicant, the applicant stressed the importance of this item
because of traffic, proximity to cross streets and visibility. Mr. Posusta has indicated that traffic
safety does support the need for the additional spaces.
Hilgart asked if there has been any decision in the past where the City has allowed a driveway to
encroach in this manner. Grittman referenced that in older part of town where lots are narrower,
the City may have previously granted variances.
Dragsten inquired about the outcome of a recent Cardinal Hills request for variance, which was
similar. Schumann reported that request was denied.
Spartz asked if two car garages are required in this zoning district. Grittman stated that they are
not. Grittman indicated that the garage may actually encroach into the current setback, but
grandfathered in. Dragsten noted two driveway access points are also prohibited.
Gabler inquired if this was a situation where the applicant is using additional parking space for
tenants. Schumann noted that it is a designated as asingle-family homestead property, not a
rental property.
Grittman re-stated that the applicant will need a variance to get up to the right of way and then a
license agreement to be in the right of way. Dragsten confirmed that the Morning Glory
. townhomes have a license agreement already in place.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
• David Hyfen, 301 Elm Street, addressed the Commission. He indicated that his concern is that
the association maintains the entire right of way in that area as part of an agreement. As part of
that, the association put in a sprinkler system. The problem arose when Mr. Posusta built the
parking pad on the north side of garage, he built it wide enough to cover sprinkler system. Hyfen
stated that at when he asked Posusta to address the situation, he didn't get anywhere. Hyfen
stated that he called the City and the property line stakes were put in by the city. He indicated
that in talking with s sprinkler company about moving the system lines, it would cost about $375.
Dragsten inquired if the applicant went over the heads, or the line of the system. Hyfen stated
that if the City gives him this variance, the whole thing will be over the line. Dragsten stated that
the variance is for the encroachment over the setback. The license agreement into the right of way
is something different.
Glen Posusta addressed the Commission as applicant. He stated that he purchased the house and
has been making continued improvements to the home, which he believes the Morning Glory
residents will be happy with. Posusta noted for clarity that the sprinkler heads are actually on his
property. Posusta indicated that he is trying to solve parking issues. He indicated that he has
voiced his concern to his son and roommate, who live in the home, regarding the parking of the
flatbed truck for Jerry's towing. The truck will fit on the driveway, but the tail will hang over.
The side driveway is being proposed to alleviate any safety issues. Posusta explained that the
number of vehicles parked adds up, and by adding to the driveway, it will prevent parking on the
street.
Dragsten asked if the truck would be parked next to the garage. Posusta responded that it would
• be. Right now, he has told them to park passenger vehicles south of the driveway for visibility
reasons. Dragsten clarified that they are not running a business. Posusta confirmed they are not.
Voight asked how long the proposed driveway is. Posusta responded that it long enough to hold
the tow vehicle. Posusta noted that the Sheriffls Department has requested that the tow vehicle
not be parked on-street, as it is also a County road.
Grittman noted that the recent code amendment regarding prohibition of commercial vehicles in
residential districts, with an exemption for tow trucks, was never adopted.
Hilgart noted that this is a strange case, because typically the encroachment would be onto private
property. Dragsten noted it is also atypical because normally when you have right of way, there
is a road in place.
Voight inquired if Posusta plans on paving or putting in concrete. Posusta stated that the code
requires that if it is a corner lot, it is supposed to be paved. This isn't technically a comer lot,
because there is no street, but he would be willing to pave it if need be. Otherwise, he indicated
that he will be putting in crushed concrete. Voight stated that if the grade was correct, would they
even need the variance. Grittman stated that it is needed to meet the 3 foot setback.
Spartz asked if overnight parking restrictions apply to Elm Street during the winter months.
Grittman stated that he believes they do.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Grittman noted that the sprinkler system is a private improvement. That is a private property
dispute, and it is not necessarily an issue for the City to get involved in. Dragsten suggested that
it be resolved prior to the license agreement.
4
. Voight noted that he would just as soon have the vehicles off the street. Dragsten noted that you
don't have too many homes abutting unimproved streets. Voight commented that in the past, the
City has tried to accommodate the ability to park additional vehicles by allowing garages in the
back.
Spartz noted that the right of way is kept very well, and that he appreciated Mr. Posusta's
comments regarding bringing up the value of his property, as well.
Dragsten noted that there are two letters from the public that will be put into public record. One
opposed commercial vehicles on public streets. The other opposed the overflow of cars on site,
including the flatbed truck.
Hilgart commented about the possible setting of precedent. Dragsten stated that he didn't think
that would be an issue, as this request is so unique due to its location.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
3-S.D.9.G RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
VARIANCE SERVES PUBLIC PURPOSE DUE TO THE ALLEVIATION OF TRAFFIC
SAFETY CONCERNS. THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED ON A RECOMMENDATION
THAT BEFORE CITY ENTERS INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT, THE SPRINKLER LINE
ISSUE IS RESOLVED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
• 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a recLuest for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for boundary
adiustment and sign relocation in a B-3 (Hi away Business) District. Applicant: AMAX Storage
Self-Storage
Planner Grittman provided the staff report regarding the request, stating that the applicant is
seeking approval of a PUD Amendment to allow for relocation of an existing sign for his
business, Amax Self Storage, located at 36 Dundas Road. Grittman reported that the applicant is
proposing to move the existing Amax Self Storage sign from an off-site location at the southeast
corner of Highway 25 and Dundas Road to the southeast corner of Cedar Street and Dundas
Road, which will be located on the same parcel as the self storage business. He noted that the
applicant recently platted a separate parcel and is proposing to sell that parcel. As a result, the
applicant would like to move the existing sign.
The sign was allowed at the current location through a Planned Unit Development, which
incorporated all of the applicant's properties east and west of Cedar Street, along Dundas Road.
Grittman explained that the relocated sign will remain the same in terms of size and illumination.
The applicant has indicated that the overall height of the sign may be reduced somewhat as a
result of re-mounting it in its new location. The applicant is proposing to place the sign within
the stone wall/fenced area that surrounds the property. No sign setbacks were established as a
part of the PUD and, as such, the proposed new location for the sign is compliant with Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
Grittman stated that the applicant is also seeking to remove the parcel west of Cedar Street, Lot 1,
Block 1 of the recently approved plat of Amax Addition, from the original Amax Self-Storage
Planned Unit Development. Any required conditional uses for that parcel would then be
reviewed through the appropriate process at the time of development
Grittman stated that staff recommend approval of the PUD as proposed.
5
• Spartz inquired about the height of the sign. Posusta clarified that there would be no changes to
the sign, the height as it exists now will remain the same.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
AMENDMENT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE TO THE B-3 DISTRICT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
for amulti-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Hi~hwa~Business) District. Applicant:
Cornerstone/DOJO. LLC
Planner Grittman detailed comments from the staff report on the request. Cornertsone/DOJO
Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to
allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings on a site located south of Dundas Road
and east of State Highway 25. The PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of
two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. Grittman indicated that the summary of his
comments would be addressed through a review of the stated conditions in Exhibit Z.
Grittman stated that the City has been attempted to manage the number of access points along
Cedar Road in order to avoid more conflicts with turning movements and congestion. In this
• case, access location is particularly important because it is first on north side of block to develop.
While the applicants have presented a reasonable design, staff has included a condition that the
applicant be required to combine access with any future development to the south. The staff
recommendation is to straddle the lot line and work with the adjacent property owner, or enter
into a cross access agreement with future development to provide cross access between parking
lots. The City is not requiring one alternative or the other. If the property owner to the south is
not ready to do that, it will require cross access at that time.
Grittman reviewed the parking on site, stating that although parking meets requirements, due to
the number provided and the site serving as amulti-tenant facility, the CUP needs to be restricted
in terms of restaurant use. Additionally, Grittman noted that the southwest corner of the parking
lot becomes tight for parking maneuvers. It is recommended that they eliminate stalls in this
area to accomplish better movement through the areas. They are compliant with parking
requirements, so there is flexibility to allow for this condition.
In terms of building design, Grittman explained that the applicant has now provided colored
elevations, which were not supplied previously. In regard to the elevations, the fifth condition
requires that materials for the buildings be revised. Grittman noted that the back of the buildings
face the public street. In the past, one of the requirements that the City has stressed along Cedar
Street is enhancements to those faces in order to make a stronger architectural presentation to the
street, especially given traffic levels. Grittman indicated that staff had met with the applicant and
suggested use of stone on those sides of buildings.
Enhancements to landscaping are also recommended. Currently, the plan proposed does meet
minimum requirements. Grittman commented that in a PUD the City looks for something more
than the minimum.
The other comments reviewed by Grittman included the need for a photometric plan, a
recommendation that the trash enclosure be made internal to the building, and that the applicant
6
comply with the City Engineer's comments. Grittman stated that the City Engineer did make
modifications to the comment letter included in the packet after meeting with the applicant.
Otherwise, the site meets commercial development standards; staff is recommending approval.
Gabler asked if the access points on Cedar were wide enough for a center median. Grittman
indicated that there are shown as standard width.
Hilgart asked if there is any concern with west side elevations for the building facing Highway
25. Grittman responded that staff would be concerned with any side facing the public street; the
same comment would apply on that side as well.
Wojchouski inquired about visibility in terms of the tree plantings. Grittman reviewed existing
and proposed plantings and indicated that they appear to provide enough room for street and site
visibility.
Voight inquired about the monument signage. Grittman stated that the applicant has proposed a
sign band on the buildings and afree-standing sign that is 128 square feet. The requirements in
this district are 100 square feet. However, because there are two buildings, theoretically they
could have two free-standings signs. So in essence, the aggregate size for the one monument is
less than what they could have proposed. Voight asked if there is information on the wall signs.
Grittman stated that it appears from a total square footage, they will be under the maximum
allowed.
• Dragsten asked about the Dundas Road vacation. Grittman responded that there is a remnant
piece of ROW for Dundas Road in the northern portion of the site. It is the City's understanding
that the current property owner will convey it to the applicant. Grittman noted that it was a
condition of the original platting.
Dragsten inquired if the monument sign would be brick or stone, or whether it would have no
columns. Grittman deferred to the applicant.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Gary D'Heilly, project engineer, spoke to the Commission representing the applicant.
D'Heilly stated that the applicant would prefer an access alternative which connects through the
site. Outside of that preference, they have no problem with the connection and would be good for
the site. It is just how to accomplish what we are looking for. He noted that the applicant is not
planning for any restaurant uses and understand the condition.
In regard to building materials, the applicant is willing to work with City staff. Dragsten stated
that Commission's concern is that the building presented is what will be constructed. D'Heilly
stated that they felt that the use of stone will create variation along corridor. D'Heilly remarked
on the types of materials. Dragsten asked if they had considered using different stone for the
different store fronts. D'Heilly stated that perhaps if the storefronts were larger. D'Heilly
indicated that they will wrap stone around the side of the building and are considering bringing
that down the sides of the doors, as well.
• D'Heilly explained that they would like to be careful with adding too many overstory trees in.
Dragsten clarified that they have no problem meeting that condition. D'Heilly concurred and
stated that they have no issue with providing the lighting plan, and pulling back the trash
7
enclosure. He noted that in discussions with the City Engineer, they had come to an agreement
on the items addressed in the comment letter.
Drasgten stated that as far as Exhibit Z, it appears that the only real issue is the access. D'Heilly
agreed, stating that they would like to use the tie-in as it results in the fewest number of spaces
lost.
Dragsten inquired whether there would be any readerboard on the sign. D'Heilly responded that
there would not be. Dragsten asked if they would match stone on the sign to the building.
D'Heilly stated that the posts will be covered with aluminum, which would be color-matched to
trim of the building.
Carey Housrcht, applicant, addressed the Commission. Voight asked if they would be opposed to
adding a condition that sign materials will be same as building materials. Houscht indicated that
would be acceptable. Voight noted that condition would be consistent with changes the
Commission is seeking in the revision to the sign ordinance.
Hilgart inquired if on the east and west side of the north building, the second story is finished area
or facade. D'Heilly responded that the applicant may allow extra mezzanine for storage. The
height is just to give the building vertical delineation. Hilgart stated that he thinks it would help
if you had dormers above each door. D'Heilly stated that it will get too busy.
Draggten asked what type of signs would be on the front of each store; would they be individually
lit letters or cans. Carey stated that they are box lighting. Voight stated that he did discover in
• sheet A2 that the front elevation has designated signage panels. Voight inquired if they do have
signage on the back of the buildings. D'Heilly confirmed. Voight stated that is one way to help
achieve four-sided achitecture. Voight noted that is his one major concern -that there definitely
needs to be some improvements to the side and rear faces.
Spartz asked what makes this PUD a superior project. D'Heilly noted that the architecture
represents a nice visual break-up along the corridor. They have gone away from the flat
appearance that is typical along the corridor. Spartz agreed, but recommended that more
emphasis on improving all faces of the buildings.
Dragsten asked if the project is leased out. Hourscht responded that it is about 50-60% leased
out.
Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the wording of condition one. The Commission agreed that the
current language allows flexibility for the applicant to work the adjacent property owner as
needed. Voight stated that he would also add an eleventh condition requiring that the monument
be of similar style and color as buildings.
Dragsten stated that his concern is that this project needs to proceed based on Commission's
recommendations for elevation enhancements.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PUD/CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS.
The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand
(i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be
required.
3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme
southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated.
4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval.
5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related
to the building facades facing the surrounding streets.
6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south
and west boundary areas.
7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject
to City approval.
8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal
buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those
used on the principal buildings.
9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff-
applicant meeting on July 29, 2008
10. Right of way dedications and vacations are fmalized prior to final building permit approval.
11. The free-standing monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style,
material and color.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
9. Public Hearing -Consideration of request to approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map.
Community Development Coordinator Schumann stated that the Planning Commission is asked
to review and approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. She stated that the City
Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. The last official
updated was completed in 2005.
Schumann reported that the draft presented to the Commission had been reviewed in detail and it
is believed that the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning action. Schumann noted
one adjustment in the zoning for the Autumn Ridge and Walmart area.
Chairman Dragsters opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsters closed
the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION
OF THE 2008 CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING MAP, INCLUDING THE ADJUSTMENTS
NOTED BY STAFF.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9
• Commission Spartz requested that staff provide documentation of official rezoning actions as they
occur.
10. Update on commercial vehicle amendment.
Grittman reported that the amendment to commercial vehicles ordinance was brought to the City
Council, where it generated quite a bit of discussion about both the method that was being
proposed for regulation, and whether the amendment was itself necessary. The City Council
decided not to take any action, instead requesting that staff document the number of complaints
raised to confirm that it is a problem. Staff has been tracking various complaints.
Schumann noted that the current ordinance does prohibit commercial vehicles in residential
districts, it is just difficult to enforce, given it is based on gross vehicle weight.
Commissioner Voight encouraged those residents watching the meeting live to attend the
upcoming sign workshop.
11. Adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
• MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Record
10