Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-01-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION September lst, 2009 Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgar , William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted a full quorum of the Planning Commission present and the presence of Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 4, Schumann indicated that minutes would be provided at the October meeting. Citizen Comments. None. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellberg's, Inc Planner Grittman presented the staff report for this item, noting that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission tabled this item to allow the applicant to respond to questions posed by the Commission. Grittman stated that these types of buildings are allowed by conditional use permit, subject to certain conditions, which he outlined. Grittman pointed out that the existing building is adjacent to an outdoor storage facility, which is used to store materials used for the maintenance of the mobile home park. The area appears to be surfaced to control dust, however, there are questions regarding screening of the outdoor storage from residential uses. Grittman explained that the lack a landscape plan that illustrates existing and proposed landscaping elements did raise some issues. As such, the Commission tabled action. Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 Subsequently, the applicant has provided an aerial photograph of the site with notations on the existing landscaping. Grittman referred to landscaping elements present on the image. Grittman stated that if the Commission would like to recommend approval, staff would recommend the following conditions: • Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening around the west and south boundaries of the storage area. Said landscaping should be designed to provide year -round screening to a height of at least six feet. • Installation of the planned landscaping should be required to be completed by October 31, 2009. • Any fencing proposed as part of the plan shall receive the proper permits from the City of Monticello • The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City's Building Code. • The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department in a timeframe as directed by the Building Official Hilgart inquired if the applicant is asking to add outdoor storage. Grittman stated that the outdoor storage is already there. The code specifies that if the proposed accessory building is associated with any outdoor storage, that outdoor storage must be screened from surrounding residential uses. There was discussion about which buildings actually exist in regard to the sketch provided. Grittman clarified that the building labeled as "proposed" is already existing. Gabler inquired what was submitted for a landscape plan. Grittman confirmed that the aerial was submitted as the landscape plan. Chairman Dragsten re- opened the public hearing, noted that the hearing had been continued in August. Brian Southwell, legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the reason that the applicant is presenting the aerial image as a landscape plan is because the storage yard has been as is since the seventies. The landscaping has been in place since that time. Cedar trees are in place providing screening to the west. To the south is a sales yard which is not for residential occupation, so it is their position that screening to the south is not needed. To the east, there is an existing line of full lilacs, which provide screening. To the north is an existing building, close to the building for which the CUP has been requested. Under normal circumstances, the applicant would provide a landscape plan, but in this case, the landscaping has been in place for many years. Southwell commented that the building for which the CUP is being requested will actually reduce the amount of outdoor storage. There are no residences from the south, east or north to be impacted. To the west, where there are residences, Southwell stated that there is screening in place. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 Voight inquired whether the applicant has received any complaints. Southwell stated that he has asked that question and staff has received no complaints. Voight inquired whether the residents were notified of this applicant. Southwell stated that residents were not notified. Schumann stated that because the residents of the mobile home do not own the underlying property, just their units, they do not receive notice. Hilgart inquired when the building was constructed. Southwell stated that he believed it was constructed in 2007 in error. Southwell indicated that it was constructed due to misinterpretation of code. Southwell indicated that he and the applicant had been working with City legal counsel to resolve this matter over the course of two years. Hilgart inquired when the City found out the building was constructed. Anderson replied that a resident called to advise that a building was being built in the fall of 2007. The building was completed by the time the call was made. Hilgart inquired why it has taken two years to get to this point. Schumann stated that the City has been working with the applicant during that time to try to resolve this issue. At this time, the City attorney has advised that the City consider a new application and narrowly define the scope of the review to the required conditions as specified by the code. Dragsten inquired whether the applicant had seen the proposed conditions of approval. Southwell confirmed, stating that it seemed that the remaining sticking points relate to the lack of a landscaping plan. Southwell stated that item "a" is under discussion, item "b" has been resolved in their opinion, as all screening seems to be in place as needed. In regard to item "c ", they are not proposing any fence. In relationship to the review of the building official, they would agree to make any corrections as outlined by Mr. Anderson in his review of the building permit documents. Gabler stated that she expects to see a landscape plan versus the photograph that was supplied. She suggested that we need to be clear as a City about what is acceptable as this seems to be an avoidance of submission of the plan. Southwell stated that they could provide supplemental information, if needed. Chairman Dragsten stated that to the west, he stated that he does have concerns about adequate buffering. To the north, there does not seem to be a problem. Dragsten stated that for the safety and welfare of the applicant's own property, it would seem that this should have been resolved long ago. Dragsten commented that it seems that this item has been dragging on for some time. He stated that he believes that the landscaping plan is important. The lilacs do provide good screening. To the south, perhaps that doesn't need to be fully screened due to lack of residential use. Voight inquired if there are any plans that the area to the south would be used for residential purposes. Southwell stated that it would absolutely not be used for mobile Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 home residences. Voight stated that the northwest area needs to be reviewed in terms of landscaping. Southwell stated that they would then supplement the record to submit a landscape plan showing the north and west. Voight suggested that the entire are be shown, with additional landscaping for buffering to the west and possibly north. The Commission discussed whether the fencing condition would be needed. Wojchouski commented that perhaps a view to the south would be good so that maintenance could see people approaching the sales area. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT INCLUDED IN THE 09/01/09 STAFF REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening around the west and south boundaries of the storage area. Said landscaping should be designed to provide year -round screening to a height of at least six feet. b. Installation of the planned landscaping should be required to be completed by October 31, 2009. C. The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City's Building Code. d. The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department in a timeframe as directed by the Building Official MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 6. Consideration of a request for sketch plan review of a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a around -floor residential development in the CCD. Applicant: Master's P Avenue Community Development Director Schumann stated that the applicant requested tabling of this item to the October meeting. Gabler inquired of the other Commissioners what the general feeling was on this request. Staff confirmed that both the use and look of the building had changed since the first request. The applicant is now proposing an exclusively residential use with a different building design. The applicant also indicated that he is not tied to this architecture. The discussion he is looking for relates to the land use and whether the ground floor residential and higher density of residential would be acceptable to the City. The staff report addresses both of those items. Gabler stated that as it is downtown, is the City looking for more commercial, or is it more transitional. Voight responded that it is commercial to the north, south and east, with in Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 residential to the west. He stated that the idea of all residential is not completely alarming. However, what they had proposed architecturally needed more thought. It would need to be convincing to consider the amendment. Dragsten inquired what type of housing was proposed. Grittman confirmed it was proposed as market rate residential. Wojchouski stated that the 1997 plan calls for upper -level residential, which lately has not proven very successful. She stated that it would likely be many years before that piece was able to be developed successfully for commercial. Grittman noted that the redevelopment plan wants to preserve as much land as possible for commercial — it isn't to discourage residential. Wojchouski noted that the new comp plan also allows for commercial development on east Broadway. Spartz noted continued parking issues in that area. Hilgart stated that the issue isn't having people in the downtown, the issue is saving that property for the future and preserving the opportunity for commercial. In the short term we may not need it, but it is the long term that needs to be considered. Schumann noted a comprehensive plan amendment would be needed. So, this review would also be brought forward to the City Council for their input. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for a Drive - Through Facility. Joint Parking and Joint Access and a request for Final Plat for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors. LLC Schumann stated that Broadway Market Investors and M & I Bank are requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for commercial development project at Broadway Market. On September 2 °a, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The site is zoned PZ -M, Performance Mixed District. The City Council approved the CUP on September 22, 2008. Schumann stated that due to non -use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expired on September 22, 2009. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non -use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one- year extension. All previously approved conditions will apply to any extension of the permit. Gabler inquired if Broadway Market Investors owns all of the property around this site. M & I Bank now owns this site. Gabler requested that staff talk with Broadway Market about the existence of incomplete building and related materials on the Broadway Market site as they present a blight issue. Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TO SPARTZ RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 22Nn, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR M & I BANK WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. SCHUMANN POINTED OUT THAT THIS ITEM HAD RELATIVELY FEW CONDITIONS ATTACHED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 8. Consideration to review an update regarding the amendment of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Off - Street Parking. Planner Grittman explained that the Commissioners and Council members had the opportunity to discuss the common issues and concerns with off - street parking in a workshop setting. The result of that workshop is the ordinance presented in the staff report. One of the most important features of the proposed amendment is the inclusion of a table which illustrates the type of vehicle, the location it may be parked and the surfacing requirements. There is also a reference to commercial vehicles. Grittman stated that it does fit within the context of this discussion, so it has been identified as a continuing issue with some suggested language. Grittman noted that the draft language includes definitions. A due amount of time was spent defining terms as a basis for clarity. This includes clarification on yard spaces. In that regard, Grittman noted the presence of an illustration to aid in ordinance clarity. Grittman stated that the material has also been consolidated into one place for ease of use. Grittman opened the discussion for the Commission's questions. Voight inquired whether on page 3, the definition of vehicle storage should include "passenger vehicles ". Grittman stated that this is by design, as the guidance was to not allow the storage of passenger vehicles, but rather parking of those vehicles. Voight inquired whether vehicles parts would fall under the refuse section. Grittman confirmed. Voight stated that he liked the way large and small commercial vehicles were treated in the proposed amendment. Voight suggested that small commercial vehicles be treated just like passenger vehicles with exception of the storage item. He also asked about item G in the diagram, asking whether the City only requires screening within 5' of ROW, or whether it is required regardless. Voight stated that perhaps this should be required no matter what. Grittman stated that he would clarify prior to Council. Schumann asked if there were any reason not to make this area consistent with the 6' drainage and utility easement. Grittman stated that the standard for most parking areas allows for 3' setback from property line. In that case, the 6' requirement would only be adjacent to street, not nowhere else. Dragsten stated that he believes the reason for 5' is because for a 20' setback on side yard, about 15' would be needed just to park a certain sized vehicle. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/01/09 Dragsten confirmed that the parking setback is required to be 3'. He inquired if there are situations within the community that do not meet this requirement. Anderson confirmed. Dragsten inquired about the alpha - numerical designations of the definitions. Grittman stated that was the way the ordinance is set up now. With the updating of the code, these can also be re- codified to make more sense. Dragsten inquired about the specification requiring 6" of Class 5 material. Grittman noted that was included within the current ordinance. Anderson stated that was not unreasonable in clay soils. Schumann noted that she had not expected the Commission to move this item forward so quickly with additional comment. As such, she did not publish notice for a hearing in September. This item will need to come back in October for an additional review. 9. Community Development Director's Update. Chairman Dragsten inquired if there had been any feedback on the new sign ordinance. Schumann stated that in filling in at the front desk, she has heard some positive comments. Wojchouski commented that it was nicely done and well organized. Dragsten stated that the Chamber members he had spoken with said it was an improvement. Hilgart inquired about the property between I -94 and CSAH 75, as it is a blight concern. Schumann noted that the City continue to work with the County on enforcement, as the property is still in the township. 10. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 7