Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-04-2012MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff.. Angela Schumann, Ron Hackemnueller, Steve Guthman -NAC I. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and noted the absence of Commissioner Gabler. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of November 7,201 COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2012 MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Uses to allow Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor, Auto Repair - Manor as Accessory Conditional Uses in the B -3 (Highway Business) District; a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales /Rental; a Conditional Use Permit for Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor and Auto Repair - Minor; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8 - Off - Street Parking Requirements; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening Requirements; Automotive /Bedrock Motors. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Grittman explained that the project is a series of applications, and the public hearing held will qualify for each of the applications. He briefly reviewed each of the applications and provided an overview of the proposed project itself. The subject site is a parcel previously operated by D and D Bus Company. There are two existing metal buildings on the property. This property was then used by the Hecker dealership. The current applicant proposes to use the site as an automobile dealership, along with a series of related uses. The automobile sales will be the principle use, the accessory uses will be automobile repair, and track sales and repair. The applicant is hoping to operate on the property as it exists today without making significant improvements. Eventually the applicant is hoping to make longer term improvements. Grittrnan explained that because the site was abandoned more than a year ago, the site loses its nonconformity rights under the zoning ordinance and also under state statue. Typically, when a parcel has a nonconforming use or nonconforming structures, those are allowed to be continued or allowed to be remodeled, repaired, and even replaced if within a 6 month thneframe. The only limitation is that nonconforming uses are not allowed to be expanded. Once 12 months has gone by, if no permits are filed, and no improvements are done, then the nonconforming rights are lost. In this case, any permits that were granted, any existing nonconforming conditions that were in place at the time essentially are extinguished from the site, and the site is intended to be redeveloped in conformance with the code. Grittman stated that the existing buildings are considered lawful nonconforming but because they have not been removed, the buildings can stay in place. However, to occupy the site, all other conditions of the code are required to be met. And as a result, the applicant is also asking for variances relating to the non - conforming site conditions, particularly landscaping and parking lot curbing. Mr. Grittman indicated that the site is zoned B -3, which is highway commercial zoning district. Amendments to the zoning are necessary to accommodate the accessory auto repair, both major and minor. Those are common accessory uses for automobile dealerships and are currently allowed as principle uses. The other category of arnendment the applicant is seeking is for machinery and trick repair and sales. These accessory uses are not allowed in a B -3 district, the applicant is proposing to amend the B -3 district to allow the vehicle machinery /truck uses to the site. Mr. Grittman said staff's recommendation is consistent with the applicant's requests. Staff is recormnending that truck/machinery sales and repair be allowed as an accessory use, again by conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 Mr. Grittman summarized that the principle use of the property would be the automobile dealership, with accessory uses of auto repair, both major and minor, and sales and repair for trucks, machinery, and equipment. Each of these accessory uses, if the Commission recommends amending the orduiauce, are proposed to be added as conditional uses, and so the applicant is then asking for requisite conditional use pen-nits that would go along with each of those. The applicant is also seeking variances from the zoning ordinance because the site is inconsistent with the code in terms of landscaping and parking lot improvements - primarily curbing in this case. The applicant is asking for those requirements to be waived by variance. In addition to the use permits, the applicant is also requesting the approval of a preliminary and final plat, which would combine three parcels associated with the site into one. One of the parcels is part of an old right -of -way that was tweed back to this property that area would also be used for vehicle display, along the Interstate 94 frontage. The other is a small remnant parcel. The proposal is to re plat these three parcels into a single plat that would accommodate the use. Staff considers this to be correcting an issue that exists on the property now. Mr. Grittman asserts that staff is supportive of the anendments, as staff believes they are consistent with the intent of the B -3 district, code, and Comprehensive Plan. This is a highway- oriented commercial use. The buildings are one of the remaining nonconfortnities that continue to exist. Normally the code would require an upgrade with the building standards, but because the buildings have not been removed, they are allowed to be reoccupied as they exist. Staff believes the conditional use permits are also appropriate, as the uses are consistent with the code and the Comprehensive Plan. The plat, staff believes is simply a ministerial action. However, staff is recommending against the variance requests. With a variance request, the applicant is required to show that there is a unique condition on the property that creates a practical difficulty to putting the property to use under the ordinance. So the City must find the use is reasonable in the proposed way, and that there is some difficulty with the property that keeps the applicant from complying with the code. The issue here relates specifically to the use of the property without landscaping and curbing improvements. In staffs view, it is very difficult to find why it is not plausible or feasible to comply when it is required of all commercial properties. There does not appear to be anything particularly unique about this property that would set it apart from other commercial parcels. Economic conditions are not to be considered as a principle finding in support of a variance request. As a result, staff is not recommending approval of the variances. Mr. Grittman suggested that the variances are considered separately from the other applications since the commissioners are the Board of Adjustment on the variances. Mr. Grittman closed and asked for questions. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Spartz stated that he is in agreement to address the amendments and the variances individually. Mr. Fyle asked if both parcels have road frontage. Mr. Grittman said the combined parcel will have the frontage, and the plat corrects oddities in the boundary of the property. Mr. Sala asked if there is any reason this property couldn't have been purchased before the one year was up and grandfathered in. Mr. Grithnan replied that he does know of any reason why it could not have been purchased, the requirements for nonconformities do not relate to purchase, they relate to use or building activity. Mr. Sala asked if there is any reason that this building couldn't have been used before that tone, have they been trying to get this building, and their time ran out before they could. Mr. Grittman replied that he is not aware of that condition. Mr. Sala asked for a clearer definition of truck and machinery Mr. Grithnan replied that the applicant could give the best idea of the full nature of the use proposed. Mr. Spartz asked how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Grittman responded that it was in the 3 -4 year range. Mr. Spartz asked if the amendment would be to allow auto repair, both major and minor in the B -3 as a conditional uses as they are not currently allowed as either permitted or conditional accessory uses. Mr. Grittman responded that the auto repair is not listed in the list of accepted accessory uses; but it is listed in the list of allowable principle uses. The objective in the amendment is to add them to the list of accessory uses list. Mr. Spartz asked if that would be consistent with the properties that have been there. Mr. Grittman confirmed, and said that the auto dealers have traditionally been auto repair as an accessory use, it seems to be more of an oversight in the code. Mr. Spartz asked about the machinery and truck zoning, in what zoning district world that be an allowable use. Mr. Grittman replied that the truck repair and truck sales world be permitted in the industrial districts. Chairman Spartz opened the public hearing. Ron Maas, Bedrock Motors, 13830 Northdale Blvd, Rogers, addressed the Commission. Mr. Maas also introduced Scott Dahlke, with Civil Engineering Site Design, site engineer. Mr. Maas discussed the background of the company, where, and how the company began, and why he chose to come to Monticello to locate the fourth store. Two years ago, the applicant looked at the property and decided it was going to be one of the target locations. However, after being delayed by others who were interested in the property, they are finally back on track. Initially, the intent was to come in and do the best job they could with what is there. Eventually, Mr. Maas stated that it is his intent to come back and use the large grass area, in addition to the 2.9 acre of paved area. Mr. Maas explained that the economic issues on his side are definitely an obstacle. Mr. Maas state that the items referenced and discussed with staff are deal breakers, they wish to occupy the facility in the present condition. Mr. Maas assured the Commission that Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 all facilities are all very nicely run, and that unfortunately, with this one, there are a couple of very large stumbling blocks that he would like to go through by item. Mr. Dahlke referred to Exhibit Z. Starting with item one, it Dablke noted that the landscaping and curbing are lacking around the perimeter. The property seems to function sufficiently in its current condition; there are no drainage problems that would be benefitted by installing curbing. He stated that the site has functioned for many years in the current condition and that is what the applicant is pushing for, is to continue under that condition. He also explained that it is impossible to install the required landscaping without tearing out existing bituminous. Condition number two requires that the applicant provide evidence that there is adequate water and sanitary sewer service on the property. Here again, Dahlke stated that the applicant is trying to use the property in the existing condition. Right now, water is served by a well on the site. It is not hooked up to city water, there is city sewer that has been extended out of the site, and the way it was set up originally and operated with the previous business there was that there was a meter on the well that gets read and reported to the utility department. That meter reading then determines the sewer billing for the property. Again, the applicant is looking to continue with the same program. Number three talks refers to a grading and drainage plan. Mr. Dahlke indicated that the applicant is again looking at utilizing it as is, as it drains sufficiently. There are no erosion problems, nothing would be corrected or bettered by going through all of this effort. Regarding condition number four and five, Mr. Maas said it is not their intention to have a large facility just for truck repair. Because of the economic changes, he wants to talk about it up front and make sure that if they were to take in a trade or were selling a semi -truck that there would be no problem with it. Their core business is cars and mediurn and small tricks. He stated that occasionally, there are larger trucks, most of which would be the size of a Penske truck/box truck. Mr. Dahlke stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing lighting and would therefore object to a requirement to comply with condition six. Condition number 7 addresses sign permits, and the applicant understands that they will go through a formal permit process for signage. Mr. Dahlke indicated that the applicant objects to condition eight, which is a curbing requirement. The existing accesses are wider than 24 feet, they are 30 -35 feet. Mr. Gritttnan noted that the city engineer can approve a certain size of curb cut. Mr. Dalke said with their goal of using the property as is, they're not looking to go tear up the access and reconfigure it. Mr. Dhalde stated that the applicant can properly address items nine and eleven, but object to item ten requiring continuous curbing. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Dahlke addressed conditions twelve and thirteen, which deal with repair operations within the building within 600 feet of the residential zone. There is code a requirement that within a 600 foot buffer, no repair can occur within 600 feet of a residential zone. The southerly building is within that 600 foot dimension from those residential properties to the south. Mr. Grittlnan indicated that it was his understanding from an earlier meeting with the applicant that the primary uses will be held in the building to the north, while at southern building will be used mostly for storage purposes. W Maas indicated that he would indeed like to repair in that south side building. If there were any type of repair done, they would make sure everything was up to code. Mr. Maas also has an issue with prohibiting the doors from being open while repair is going on. The problem lies that in the suminer time, it is difficult to convince the technicians to keep the doors closed. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicants to go through, by number, the items in Exhibit Z that they first agree with, and second, the items with which they have contention. Mr. Dahlke stated that the applicant has no issue with items 4,5,7,11, but does have contention with conditions 1,2,3,6,8,9,10,12,13. Mr. Spartz asked for the age of the existing building. Staff and Mr. Fyle responded that it is about 30 years. Council liaison Hilgart inquired about the nature of compliance relative to the re-use of the site and the requirements for other commercial buildings. Planner Grittman confirmed that these are requirements that would apply to the re -use of any commercial site whose non- conformity rights have lapsed. Angela Schumann noted that in any case, many of the conditions would be demonstrated with the final site plan which is required per zoning ordinance . She noted that the applicant will also need a new certificate of occupancy, which would trigger the site plan review. Schumann said they would also ask for site lighting plan, where there area variety of things that can be done to cone into compliance. It could be a change in the fixture head, a change in the light source, the way the light is tipped or focused. Those issues could be worked through to come into compliance. Grading and drainage is a function of site planning. Schumann stated that it is important to note that the prior use was allowed as an interim use. The interim use was extended a number of times, and that interim use was put into place due to the non - compliance with many of these same issues, so that eventually that applicant would need to comply with these same requirements. Mr. Spartz asked if the hook up to city water was a Council consideration. Schumann responded that it is a council consideration, and actually, one of the buildings has adequate sewer service. Schumann said that in the other building, they are currently working through some options with the applicant, there are some options for connection. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Spartz indicated that as he was reading through the staff report, the three things that stood out most were the building, the curbing and the landscaping. Spartz pointed out that the parcel is located near a residential area that has had issues with noise before. Mr. Spartz said he thinks Commission would be failing in their job if they failed to recognize that issue. Addressing the noise, Mr. Maas said he has never had one noise complaint at his other stores. Commissioner Spartz asked if anyone else would like to speak on the issue. Hearing no other comment, Commissioner Spartz then closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Fyle said he was not in favor of anything proposed. He thinks that area needs to be protected and should come into compliance, because there are some high quality buildings adjacent to the site. He said that although this is an existing building, if the applicant came back with a major facelift, going through all the conditions written have down, he would feel differently. He also expressed concern with the truck sales and repair. Both Commissioners Burvee and Sala stated that they did not support the variances as they both have concerns with noise. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicants if there are any time constraints related to their application. Mr. Maas explained that Bedrock's agreement with Chrysler runs out on the 18`1' of December. Mr. Fyle asked staff if he were to propose a motion denying all, how his findings might be stated. Mr. Gritttnan responded that the findings would be in part reflected in the resolution related to the variances, but he would also want to then add some findings that because of the inability to meet the site conditions, that they do not comply with the terms of the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON FINDINGS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN REGARDS TO THE INABILITY TO PERFORM TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOUND IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 The Coimnission held a brief discussion as related to the grouping of recommendations on the other applications. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ADD TRUCK SALES & REPAIR AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND AUTO REPAIR — MAJOR AND AUTO REPAIR — MINOR AS CONDITIONAL ACCESSORY USES TO THE B -3 ZONING DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/12 Commissioner Spartz called for discussion on the item. Commissioner Burvee inquired if the motioned addressed the amendments for both auto and truck uses. Commissioner Spartz confirmed. Planner Grittman noted that based on the discussion, the finding of the Commission was that the amendments as proposed in combination required additional research as to their appropriateness for the district. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Commissioner Spartz inquired whether the conditional use for Vehicle Sales is already allowed in the B -3 and would be specific then to this application. Mr. Grittman responded that this particular conditional use permit is to sell automobiles as a principal use, it is an allowed use in the B -3 district currently and does not require an amendment. The question for the Commission is whether or not the City would approve a conditional use pen-nit for sales if it meets the conditions of Exhibit Z. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012 -107 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE SALES WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1, WITH COMMISSIONER FYLE IN DISSENT. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMENT DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRUCK SALES & REPAIR IN THE B -3 DISTRICT. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Cormnissioner Spartz called for clarification from Mr. Grittman as related to the Conditional Use Permits required for both major and minor auto uses. Mr. Grittman stated that while vehicle sales are an allowable principle use in the B -3, auto repair minor and major as accessory uses require the amendment to zoning ordinance. One of the applicants' requests was to add these as accessory uses, which was encompassed as part of decision two. Grittman stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider whether they wish to approve this CUP regardless of the amendment. The Council may take a separate view of the amendment and therefore it is reasonable to take the two options separately. Spartz said he believes the use of the parcel is going to be auto- related. Spatz asked if someone else came to look at the parcel, would they have to bring it to us as a separate amendment. Grittman responded if the amendments are not adopted as part of this application, then some future applicant would have to propose the amendment again. Mr. Grittman responded that he would not say that it was irrelevant, because the Council will be the final decision makers on both the amendments and CUP. Staffs recommendation is that if you did recommend approval, it would go along with the conditions in exhibit Z. Ptamring Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012 -107 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIES 4 -0. In relationship to the conditional use permit for truck sales and repair in the B -3 district, Commissioner Fyle said that he does think it is automotive in the future, and truck and sales and repair are not in that same category. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIES 3 -1, COMMISSIONER BURVEE IN DISSENT. Nh•. Gritbnan confinned that the Commission made the finding would be that truck sales and repair was inappropriate for this district and more appropriate in a different district. Commissioner Spartz confinned. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO CURBING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE VARIANCES IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH EXHIBIT Z AND THE ZONING STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Schumann said that this will go to the Council on Monday, December 10. Schmnann also said that Planner Grithnan also wanted to clarify that the Commission is the board of appeal on the variances so that is a final decision, the applicant has five days by ordinance to appeal denial of the variances. If the applicant chooses to write a written appeal, the appeal will be put on to the Council agenda with the balance of the other requests. G. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an amendment to the Mnnfirnlln 7nnina Ordinanra r hnn*nr d Cnrtian G _ Rianc fnr raanlntinne nortaini Community Development Director Schumann stated that the issue of temporary signage is one that has been addressed on numerous occasions by the Planning Commission over the past five years. The Planning Commission has looked for a balance in relationship to business needs, aesthetics, and overall cormhnrnity goals and objectives. Schuman stated that the City currently has an interim ordinance in place for temporary signage. It was adopted in February 2011, and in February 2012, it was extended for an additional year. The interim ordinance allowed city, staff, and the business community to analyze the temporary signage issue, and determine what the effects of temporary signage are, both positive and negative on the community, in particular the business community. At this time, Schtnnann stated that the Commission is asked to consider recommending repeal of the interim ordinance to the City Council and recommend temporary sign ordinance Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 amendments consistent with the City's goals for signage as a component of the overall land use policy. Schumann stated that the interim ordinance allows one sign per business for every business and the sign must be located on the parcel on which the business is located. The existing permanent ordinance allows only one temporary sign per parcel. While the interim ordinance allows one sign per business, the stipulation is that those signs must be spaced 75 linear feet apart. The reasoning is two -fold: to avoid visual clutter and to maintain the ability to read or see multiple signs. Schumann stated that the current ordinance allows forty days of temporary sign usage per parcel. Under the interim ordinance an unlimited number of days in the calendar year per business is allowed. A permit is required for all temporary signs, both under the existing and the interim ordinance. Schumann reported that the amendments proposed are based on the analysis completed under the interim ordinance. When the interim ordinance was brought back for review in early 2012, the Commission was given a large amount of data for consideration, including business surveys, corridor images, and feedback from a small business roundtable. Feedback on the ordinance has continued to be solicited from the business community through the assistance of the Chamber of Cormnerce. Schumann also referred to temporary sign permit data gathered over the past three years, which generally averages between 25 -40 permits per year. Sign violations have also been tracked. Violations were primarily for signs without permit, or signs that were too large, or too numerous on a parcel. Visual observation has been done, particularly of the primary corridors that being Highway 25, and Cormty Road 75. The amendments that are proposed will continue to allow for the extended flexibility allowed under the interim ordinance, as there were some provisions that were fol nd that seem to make sense for the business community and from an enforcement standpoint, and as such, staff is seeking to incorporate those into the ordinance permanently. Schumann noted that the most common feedback on the ordinance was to keep it simple and consistent. Therefore, staff is suggesting that the ordinance provisions continue to treat all temporary signs equally, whether it is a permant, banner, corrugated plastic sign, or a changeable copy board, remain. This responds to the business community's request for simplicity and flexibility in the type of signage they would like to use depending on the nature of their temporary signs needs at any given time. It also minimizes confusion in administration and enforcement on the City's part. Schurann reviewed the proposed amendment, which would allow one sign per business, spaced every 75 feet apart. The number of days would be increased from forty days under the current ordinance to 150 days. She noted that this would allow temporary sign usage Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, every week of the year. The signage size would be increased, from 32 square feet to 40 square feet and a permit will still be required, with number of days tracked. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Schumann stated that the proposed amendments would also allow for one additional flag device for a restaurant business with outdoor seating for a period of up to 150 days on or around the patio seating area. Another expansion would allow one sign per street fiontage on non - residential properties when a property is seeking to hire or employ personnel. Schumann then reviewed the current ordinance for temporary signs, noting the existing flexibility for sandwich boards, real estate and window signage. Commissioner Sala inquired about regulations pertaining to those businesses that do not necessarily have a building or parcel for such signage. Schumann responded that those would not be allowed, and are considered off premise signs. Commissioner Spartz asked about the size of the signs in the existing ordinance and why they went from 32 square feet to 40 square feet, and wanted to know what Schumann was using to support that decision. Schumann responded that most of the signs are 4x8, there are certainly places that rent larger signs, but as a staff, we have agreed that 32 square feet for the message boards seems to be sufficient. However, what has been discovered is that typically attached is a small piece to the top or the bottom to allow for a phone n1a nber that is usually 8 square feet or less. So, rather than complicate the ordinance further, the allowance was for 40 feet. Commissioner Spartz inquired whether help wanted signage is currently allowed. Schumann responded that businesses can currently use their existing signage allowances for such signs. The proposed amendments adds additionally flexibility specific to that purpose. On grand opening signs, Spartz asked for clarification on the opening of a new business, are there provisions for a re -grand opening. Schumann responded that staff have interpreted the ordinance as opening a new location. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. Sandy Suchy with the Monticello Chamber of Commerce addressed the Commission. She thanked the Commission for looking at the sign ordinance, and stated that they worked very hard with staff and with the business community to develop an ordinance that will work very well for the majority of the businesses. She explained that every business has different needs; they use the signs for different opportunities. Although there are a couple of businesses who are not completely provided for under the amendment, overall, the majority of the businesses are much happier with the signage that is being proposed today. Commissioner Spartz asked if Suchy thinks this will be something that the majority of the businesses can support. Suchy confirmed that yes, she really believes they would and that by providing that information to the business community, the majority of the information that she has received has been that they can support it. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing and brought it back up to the Commission for discussion. Cormmissioner Fyle said the previous sign regulations were in his opinion too 11 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 restrictive, but the interim ordinance is too lax. His stance is that he would be in agreement to extend the interim ordinance for another year; as these are still difficult times, but not in agreement for an ordinance change to what is proposed today. Commissioner Spartz asked if it was the number days. Fyle said that was a lot of it. Spartz said that this review has been a three year process; several businesses utilized the signs all three years. Spartz stated that he is comfortable with the majority of the proposed regulations, although he has trouble with the for hire piece. He noted that there will never be a one size fits all ordinance for signage, and that it is time to move forward with something that makes sense, is easy to understand and is as consistent as possible. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION 2012 -108 RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO MONITCELLO'S ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4 SECTION 5 FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN SAID RESOLUTION FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION PASSES 3 -1. 7. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3- Accessory Uses to allow Indoor Storage and Office Uses as a Permitted Accessory Use in the B -4 (Regional Business), B -3 (Highway Business), B -2 (Limited Business), B -1 (Neighborhood Business), CCD (Central Community District) and IBC (Industrial & Business Campus) Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS) Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the staff report, stating that this is primarily a housekeeping item which would allow indoor storage in office uses as accessory uses in all of the business districts. Schumann explained that staff had provided a percentage recommendation, just to make sure the balance and ratio is reasonable between principle uses and accessory use. The other component of the amendment would allow office uses as accessory to retail. Almost all businesses have an office component somewhere. Offices are actually permitted uses in most of these districts, so adding it in as an accessory use seems logical. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Commissioner Spartz closed the hearing, and brought it back up for discussion. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 570. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA, MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to Section 4.1- Landscaping and screening to allow and regulate Native Landscapes. Applicant: City of Monticello 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/12 Intern EE Community Development Intern Ellen Eden presented the staff report for the proposed amendment. Eden stated that with widespread increased interest in native prairie treatments, the proposed amendment responds to this interest while at the same time finding a way to place parameters and boundaries to ensure the preservation of the aesthetic quality of Monticello's yards. Eden cited the benefits of adopting such an ordinance, including water conservation, less usage of and in many instances no fertilizers and pesticides, and more choices for residents in selecting landscape and lawn coverings. Native landscaping will also help prevent soil erosion. Currently, Eden indicated that the City's ordinance does not allow for plant growth in excess of six inches in height. While these standards would not on their own prohibit the flexibility to install native treatments as a landscaping option, the City Code also includes public nuisance provisions which would prohibit native lawn coverings. The Public Nuisance ordinance restricts the height of grasses, for example. Eden stated that staff recognizes that native planting areas must be managed in order to avoid nuisance issues. In order for prairie grasses to be allowed, no noxious weeds are to be permitted. In fact, all weeds and turf will be removed in the beginning stages of prairie restoration. Setbacks will be required; a setback of 5 feet is required for side and back yards. A 20 foot setback is required for the front yard. The setback can be reduced to zero if there is: a public park, open space or vacant lot next to the property, if there is an adjacent wetland, pond, lake or stream, if there is a restoration in an adjoining lot, and finally if the property is contained within a solid fence constructed according to zoning guidelines. These setbacks must contain pavement, rock, gravel, wood chip mulch, trees, shrubs, or regularly mowed turf grass. There should be no overhang no encroachment onto sidewalks, curb or street areas; soil erosion must be controlled during the transition period of the restoration. All natural areas must be marked with a sign indicating that a restoration is in progress. Some companies will provide these and are included in the total price, or can be made in house for $35 per sign. All natural areas must be mowed once annually between April 15`h and June 1st, to a height no greater than eight inches. It was discussed among staff that although sometimes burning is beneficial every three years, it will not be an option at this time until a plan has been established with the fire department. Eden stated that the ordinance had been structured such that failure to comply with the ordinance shall result in cutting of the vegetation by the City of the designated contractor and the cost will be assessed the property. Prior to registration, landscape plans must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The City would not be responsible for damage to landscaped areas resulting from public work improvements or snow removal activities. These guidelines will be clearly stated in the application process. 13 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 In addition to these basic regulations, staff would recommend an abbreviated registration process, by which residents and or businesses would register their property with the City as a native planting area. Doing so would allow the City to track these locations in a database, allowing staff to respond appropriately to questions about these properties from neighbors or interested parties. Staff would suggest that an ordinance for prairie grass is due and supports an ordinance which provides for native landscapes, while prohibiting lawns or weeds from being left to `go natural.' Staff recognizes the value in planning for the needs of citizens and the environment, while at the same time preserving the visual quality of the City. Staff believes that all three can be accomplished with this ordinance: we can provide a way for citizens to explore and enjoy the benefits of native landscapes, while knowing that it is a water -smart transition. However, regulations will be enforced to ensure quality. Commissioner Spartz how such an ordinance would impact foreclosed properties. The other question he had was if the natural landscapes would be allowed in the back yard and the front yard. Eden responded that both would be allowed, however the setbacks are wider in the front yard, 20 feet, versus just 5 feet in the back yard. Ron Hackenmueller answered about the foreclosed properties that whoever owns it would still have to come forward with a plan and be approved by the Community Development Director, he said he did not see any problems with the foreclosed properties because he would still have to enforce the code for a blighted property. Spartz expressed concern that this would become the new answer for not mowing the yard. Commissioner Spartz opened up the discussion to the public. Schumann suggested one small adjustment to the language proposed - that staff would like to see that percentage higher than 35% allowable per yard, particularly in rear yards, but would defer to the commission's recommendation. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing and brought it back up to the commission. Commissioner Fyle expressed concern over neighbors embracing native landscapes. He stated he would be more comfortable with this ordinance if there was a signed contract with a maintenance firm so that there is assurance of no noxious weeds. Commissioner Spartz said that although the City may be moving this direction some day, he does not think they are there just yet. Commissioner Spartz asked if there was anything in the amendment that could be changed to make it more workable. Schumann stated that the setbacks could be increased, restrict native landscaping to a percentage of the front yard, there is a consideration that would call for the approval from the neighbors, and a maintenance provision can be added. Commissioner Spartz indicated he would like to table the ordinance to allow for some of those potential modifications to be brought back for review and possible incorporation. COMISSIONER SALA MOVED TO TABLE THE ACTION ON THE REQUEST PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY 14 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 9. Consideration to review and recommend for the expiring terms of Planning Commissioners and to recommend appointment of Chair and Vice Chair. (AS) Schumann explained that Commissioner Spartz's term is up in December of 2012, but fortunately he has offered to serve another term and in addition Commissioner Spartz has indicated if nominated, he is willing to serve again as chair. Commissioner Fyle also indicated a willingness to continue service as vice chair. Schumann opened the floor to the Commission and their nominations. COMMISSIONER SALA MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF COMISSIONER SPARTZ FOR A THREE YEAR TERM ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND NOMINATING COMMISSIONER SPARTZ FOR CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER FYLE FOR VICE CHAIR. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0 10. Consideration to set a date for the January Regular Planning Commission Meeting.(AS) COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO HOLD THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8"". MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION SALA. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 11. Director's Report Schumann provided an update on the Safe Routes to School program, stating that staff, are working in concert with the school district to develop priorities to develop safe routes to school applications. Schumann stated that they will be looking at in particular the park and pathway plan, noted that there are some gaps in the pathways and those gaps may relate to places where children need to get to school and where the children do not fall within the bussing route. That will be first priority along with safe crossings. In Monticello there are a number of different barriers to safe crossings and to look at every opportunity is essential to fund some of those improvements. Commissioner Spartz whether any other process could have been undertaken to avoid some of the negative discussion and decision on the first hearing item. Schumann responded there is a pre application meeting in which application process and site details are discussed. The meeting walks through all the formalities from the types of fees they will encounter, assessments, utilities, grading/drainage, wetlands, enviromnental, parks, pathways are all on the list. That is gone through with every applicant. However, once an application is made, the request becomes subject to the public process. The public hearing is the forum for the applicant to provide the 15 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 Commission with their information and for the City to provide an analysis and decision. 12. Adiourn COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Ellen Eden —0 Approved: February 5th, 2013 Attest: Angela S&funhatfn, Community Development Director 16