Planning Commission Agenda 04-04-2000
.
l.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
.
AGENDA
REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 4, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 7,2000.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public [Iearing - Consideration of a request for a side yard setback variance for Lot 6,
Block I and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 of Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition. Applicant:
{lamld Shermer
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for a perpendicular professional
sign. Applicant: Metcalf, Larson & Muth, P.A.
7. Adjourn.
.
.
,
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/07/00
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
4:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Acting Chair Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
Chair Dick Frie
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
2.
1. Call to order.
Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February L 2000.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1,
2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROBBIE SMITH
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
None
4.
Citizens comments.
None
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing open
sales as an accessory use in the B-4. Regional Business District. Applicant: Scott Rolfe,
Skippers Pools & Spas.
Jeff O'Neill presented the report noting that Scott Rolfe, Skippers Pools and Spas, and
the HRA are requesting a renewal of the conditional use permit allowing outside sales at
101 W. Broadway. Jeff stated that new this year is the request to fill the pools which
goes against one of the previous conditions of approval, and also that Scott Rolfe is aware
of the concerns regarding outside storage and has indicated the he will comply with the
terms of the permit in the future. The HRA has also indicated that they will monitor the
use of their property.
Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the Public Hearing. Scott Rolfe, Skippers Pools,
addressed the members stating that the storage concern has been cleared up with the HRA
-1-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/07/00
and understands the terms of the conditions. Rolfe explained the reason for filling the
display pools not only for aesthetics, but also to keep the pools grounded. Rolfe also
spoke with the Wright County Sheriff s Department who could not foresee any problems
with filling the display pools. The display will be lit at all times and winter covers will
be placed on the pools. He feels all safety issues have been addressed.
Acting Chair Carlson closed the public hearing.
There was a discussion by the members regarding the pools being filled and the City's
liability should anyone get into them and drown. It was noted that the City would most
likely be named as liable, but that it had nothing to do with the conditional use permit.
The HRA would be handling the lease agreement which would indemnify and hold
harmless the City. It was also noted that Skipper's has not previously abided by the
conditions placed on them in 1998 when the first conditional use permit was issued, and
the fact that the HRA had two written contacts with them as well as one visit to get the
storage/debris cleaned up.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
.
1.
Entering into a satisfactory lease arrangement with the HRA, including an
indemnity and hold harmless clause for the HRA/City of Monticello.
2. All lighting must be directed away from the public right-of-way.
3. Parking stalls must be clearly striped and marked.
4. No permanent or temporary signs shall be erected on the outdoor display.
5. Any swimming pool or spa displayed outdoors must be provided with a
continuous surrounding barrier to prevent entry.
6. Outdoor swimming pool or spa displays may contain water for structural
reasons, but must be securely covered nightly.
7. All items shall be removed by August 31, 2000. No outside storage allowed
under this permit.
8. The conditional use permit shall be seasonal from April through August 31,
2000.
,
ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
-2-
.
.
,
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 03/07/00
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING,
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR A
PRESERV A TION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND, AND THE FREEWAY EXPOSURE
WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT A MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECT. ROBBIE
SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried three to one with Rod
Dragsten voting in opposition.
7.
Consideration of a request to call for a public hearing on modification to the zoning
ordinance that would enable City staff to initiate zoning code amendments.
Jeff O'Neill advised the members that the current ordinance does not clearly provide City
staff with the latitude to introduce a potential ordinance amendment. Currently, Planning
Commission, City Council, and a property owner have clear authority to request a zoning
ordinance amendment. Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider making an
amendment to the ordinance which would allow an amendment to proceed directly to
public hearing at the initiation of City staff.
O'Neill advised that in the past, City staff has made a liberal interpretation of the code
and has initiated minor ordinance amendments. Enabling staff to initiate ordinance
amendments would serve to expedite the amendment process where housekeeping
changes to the code are needed.
This authority would be employed most often where mistakes are noted in the code such
as an obvious inconsistency or oversight, or where clarifications in the code are needed.
It would not be employed for amendments that would be potentially controversial. For
such amendments, staff recognizes that it is better to have the Planning Commission or
City Council initiate action to change the code.
The members discussed concerns stating that with changes in commission members and
staff there could be a potential for controversies, and that by allowing staff to proceed
directly to the public hearing stage could possibly create problems rather than correct
them. It was discussed that possibly staff could take an issue to the Planning
Commission Chair for his review first, especially if there is an item that needs to be
expedited.
Steve Grittman stated that it is quite common to give Planning/Zoning the authority to act
on such issues, however Monticello's code does not give this authority. After further
discussion, the members felt it was in their best interest to not authorize City staff to
initiate zoning code amendments.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO DENY REQUEST TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
ENABLE CITY STAFF TO INITIATE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
-4-
.
.
,
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/07/00
8.
Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the comprehensive plan
that would convert the Gold Nugget residential area to industrial uses.
Jeff O'Neill provided a report reminding the Planning Commission that the Gold Nugget
property is identified in the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 1996 as
residential. During the Gold Nugget site development review process, the MOAA Board
membership changed with the new Mayor, and a member of the City Council serving on
the MOAA changed his mind regarding residential use of the property. Consequently,
the MOAA plan designated industrial, which does not follow the City plan in this area.
The land is not developable under circumstances where there is an inconsistency between
the MOAA and City plans. Unless one of the Planning Groups switches, the property is
undevelopable until the agreement between City and township expires (9 years).
The Industrial Development Committee requests that the Planning Commission take
another look at the property and determine whether or not it might make sense to shift the
zoning to another type or types of uses. O'N eill discussed some of the factors to include
in the study as well.
There was discussion among the members as to the best use of this land, would it be
changed just to change again at some point in time, how much a study like this would
cost and was it necessary, and should they even look into this matter before the lawsuit is
finished. It was decided to have Jeff O'Neill provide more information at the regular
meeting in April.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE REGULAR
MEETING IN APRIL, PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
JEFF O'NEILL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. Adjourn
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Lori Kraemer, Recording Secretary
-5-
.
.
,
5.
Consideration of a request for side vard setback variances to allow the construction
of single family homes in the R-l Zoning District. Applicant: Harold Shermer. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Harold Shermer, is requesting side yard setback variances for Lot 6, Block
1 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition. This subdivision was
originally platted in 1998 and is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. According to Section
3-3 [Cl of the Zoning Ordinancc, the required side yard setback for properties in the R-l
District is 10 feet.
Attached to this report is the original preliminary grading plan for this subdivision. it
indicates modified building pads that meet the required 10 foot side yard setback. Therefore,
the applicant represented to the City at the time of subdividing this property that I .ot 6, Block
1 and Lots 2 and 3 Block 2, Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition were legal, buildable lots.
Without the variance the buildable lot width at setback for Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block
2 equals 40 feet. IIowever, due to the angel of the easement, the building area increases
quickly as the front setback increases, thus the reason for the garage located in the front of
the lot. Shermer indicated that the additional 4' in width will enhance his ability to develop
homes at a value desired in his development. You may recall that in his original informal
request he asked for a blanket side lot line variance across his entire plat. After learning
from the Planning Commission that such a variance request by another developer had been
rejected previously, he withdrew his request.
Section 23-4 ofthe Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria to weigh when considering a variance
request. The applicant must prove that they have non-economic hardship. These standards
and staff s findings for each are listed below.
1. The applicant has reasonable use ofthe property.
Finding: The original preliminary plat shows legal and conforming building pads on all
three lots. The lots offer a sufficient building envelope to accommodate a home without a
variance as evidenced by the preliminary plat grading plan. In addition, adjustments in the
building plans can be made to fit a home onto the lot in compliance with the required
setbacks. Therefore, staff finds that the applicant has reasonable use of their property.
2. The narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the subject property creates
exceptional difficulties in developing the site in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district.
Finding: The size and configuration of the subject properties were created by the applicant.
The subject properties meet all the standards for lots within the R-l District. The prel iminary
grading plan illustrates that all three lots have building pads which conform to the R-l
setback standards.
.
,..,
.) .
Development of the subject property under the strict interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance would create an undue hardship that the owner of another
parcel in the same district would not face if they were to develop their
property in the manner proposed by the applicant.
Finding: The subject properties were platted as legal buildable lots in 1998. Compliance
with the required setbacks does not present a non economic undue hardship that another
owner of a parcel in the same district would not face.
B. A TLERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve variance request based on a finding that the additional buildable
width is necessary to allow sufficient space for construction int his area. Motion
contingent on developer placing homes with garage on the variance side of the lot.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the side yard setback variances for Lot 6, Block 1
and Lots 2 and 3 Block 2, Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition based on the findings
contained in thi;; report.
,..,
-'-
Motion to table the side yard setback variances for Lot 6, Block 1 and Lots 2 and 3
Block 2, Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition unti I such time as more information can
be gathered. Should the Planning Commission recommend tabling this item, they
must also direct sta1Ito draft a letter to the applicant for an extension of the 60-day
review period.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
From a pure planning standpoint, it is difficult to find a justification for this variance. There
may not be a true hardship and the hardship that exists was caused by a mistake which is not
normally a reason to grant a variance. In this case, however, Planning Commission may
wish to make an exception to this rule as long as the garage is placed on the variance side of
the lot, and with the assurance from the developer that the value of the homes will be equal
to or greater than the other homes in the development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Original Preliminary Grading Plan
Preliminary Plat
t
...
"
NAC
612 595 9837 P.06/06
:.... 0.. ""'0-
"..'''~
".
MAR-30-2000 07:59
7~h3ti
\ ~.~ ~ I 5
\ ~ ~. t I
\ ~, : \' ,1~ ,. u
b ,;'ol.I-..
.' .---,.....'-- , '~'
~ ,._",,--_/r \ '!r-l . ' '"
--- ,,,:\
\ .1) ....--\ \
..--,.-.......-..-----. '$
-"'~ ,.
--', .~ '
.--_.. \4-J
1'-. ___.~
-.....
N -' ----
-..-,..........
___.--...... Z ...~
r.\\~j )
'" .-\
::. - /,,-----' \
\ ~
\ --....~_.. -- ~ .
Y'. 0 ~
\ ~ -1'"
D ---..~.'.. (]I
<l:1: _--,.... ~ ....,
__. (};)'i:'
~ '~
~ ~
~--1.
_ ..... -- r
C'J z
- ~. \
. \---~-~1~
i:!- -~---t ~ li45
01:1': l\.
, r, \ ~ j ~
-....... '\ t;'t'
, t', &~
\_---,_._..~~ "~ j
\ I ~ " 114
\ ,..\ I : " ~
. l'\ I : ...~'t
'\ \"~
fj ;.
~----:-:---~ \IS ,
\ CI \
c. rf'~ l
\-~.~~~--~\ :
~ ' .
I .::::. ~ i
l- -------.. .,-J \
1'- \:
\' , ~ \ \
. I ,
I .
i L ~..'
'f~-----1
\' \
\-----:~. ~ I 3
<"
&;"
Q ,,'
O)~. /"
~
41
"'~
;...
-..,
,,-
LJ
..:'(
\..0
;;:
-~
.... ;
TOTAL P.06
,-
,'-
,-
,'-
,-
,
,
,
,
,
,-
/.
\
\
..: \
~ \
"- \
<l> .
L. '"
" Ql
::> L.
0-0
'" 0
Ol'<t
Lf'lCtl
'<tLf'l
Lf'l .
NO
os
\
\
\
\
\
\
D\
\ \
\ \
. . ......\.......... ........ ....
\
\
\
\ <'"-9
\ /
\
\
\
\
\
\
~ (\ I \\~
r-0\ \J \
\
N
- '"
"- Ql
L.
0-0
.. "
S9l
-
<l>
III
"-
010
010
1")10
\0 .
NO
1'0
\ Lf'lC'\J
\ ~:;:;
\ ~ 0
\
t") \ \
\
'.
~......~~ ~U I
L__ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
__ ___1-
I I
.... b I 't- en ...... en.
"- e I '- ~ "- ~:
"^ 0- 0 N"'l cr 0 0- o' "^
,.,. '" 1" '1' .." n .. 0: 11
~ ~ ~ ~ Y Lf) N 10 ~ <.0 ~::;: "\t
ON;; ~ I") 1")'
~ 6 I ~ 0 ~ 0:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
I I
III
L. ...
" III
::> L.
cro
.. "
o
~G
08
06
C
0::
C
0:::
o
OJ
o
aJ
l.I)
01
\. \.
~g s.::S \ 6s.::1 \Qv 001 s.::S s.::S
~of+ ..\ \
...4. ............... . ............... . .[5"~.~~~ ."".. .....0 ............... . ............... .
- .. - \ \'" ..... '" ..... ..
,- -
"- <l> ... '" "- Ql ...... III
l.I) L. Ln "- ell Ln e'- . L. (J) L.
0-0 L. \ "''' .... 0- ~ \.: 0-0 0-0
o;:;t .. " o;:;t 0-0 ~ _ N o;:;t I- .. co .. " .. "
.. " Lf)
~ Lf'l1O - - \ -10- I") l.I)'v-o Lf'l1O Ln Lf'l1O
1")", ~ Lf'l1O -'<t ~Ol") ~ "'\" Lf) I") "- 1")"- Ln
ON \ 0 . 0- ON ~ ON
I") "- I.. Ctl .
N ON I {'I 0 eLf'lO -g;:}, '\t N C'\J o;;;t
-0 N , -0 - -0
-0 0.. ~ ': \ - -
\
s.::S ~S 6S::1 \ Ov -0 "-Q 0 I S::S
, s.::S
.
Lf'l\O
CXlCXl
Lf'lCXl
CXl .
1")0
S;ll
10'98g1
..... '"
'- III
L.
0""0
.. "
0>
-0
\OCXl
If)1'')
10 .
-0
..... ..
...... Ql
L.
0-0
.. "
s.::6
vS
'IoFf
921
\
v8
\
\
~
'.
.'. ...
. -. ~~.I'" . . . . . . . . . . .
n
lJ)
..... '"
...... Ql
L.
0-0
'" "
.'
- ",'
~ 4J:
L..
~~: 0
L{)
f'...
lJ)
I") -'
10 -:
Lf'l 1").
I") ..
- 0:
\00'>
10"-
-N
N .
-0
co
08
vS
06:
S6 :
vS
26
M ..00JZJI.l N
----~-------------~-----------
b-mibli- 1)
--
'\ r
..... I
"
d
.
.
t
6.
Consideration ofa request for a sign variance from six (6) square feet to eight (8) square feet
in the CCO - Central Communitv District Zoning District. Applicant: Metcalf Larson
& Muth. P.A. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Metcalf, Larson & Muth, P.A., is requesting a sign variancc from six (6)
square feet to eight (8) square feet to allow the placement of a projecting sign at the property
located at 313 West Broadway.
Ordinance number 334 outlines the amendment to Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2 relating
to projecting signs (see Exhibit C). This amendment was adopted by the Monticello City
Council in September of 1999. This amendment limited projecting signs to six (6) square
feet in area.
Planning Commission reviewed this same variance request one year ago and acted to deny
the request based on the finding that no hardship exists and approving the variance would
thus open the door to signs larger than the maximum allowed. The DA T is generally
supportive of this sign but had trouble finding a valid justification except for the statement
that architecturally it would be difficult to place a smaller sign at the first level. One of the
reasons provided is that the larger sign is needed for it to be visible from vehicles. This
"justification" should send shudders because the whole purpose of allowing hanging signs
is to make signage more attractive to pedestrians, if a variance is granted because it is not
visible to vehicles, we open the door to larger signs at second Hoor levels. It is the larger
second story signs that caused cities to abolish hanging signs in the first place.
Section 23-4 ofthe Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria to wcigh when considering a variance
request. The applicant must prove that they have non-economic hardship. These standards
and staff's findings for each are listed below.
1 . The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
Finding: Staff finds that a six square foot sign could adequately identify the
applicant's business.
2. The narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the subject property creates
exceptional difficulties in developing the site in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district.
Finding: Stafftlnds that the applicant's property has no physical limitations
that would require an eight square foot sign.
3.
Development of the subject property under the strict interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance would create an undue hardship that the owner of another
parcel in the same district would not face if they were to develop their
property in the manner proposed by the applicant.
Finding: Ordinance 334 which establishes the six (6) square t\.)ot area limit for projecting
signs was just adopted in September of 1999 after extensive consideration. This sign size
limit matches the comprehensive plan. This standard applies to all businesses in the CCD -
Central Community District. Strict enforcement ofthis standard on the applicant's property
will not create an undue hardshi p that another property owner in the same district would not
face.
.
13.
ATLERNA TIVE ACTIONS
.
.
-
1.
Motion to approve variance request based on a finding that it is difficult to place a
hanging sign at the first level and such a sign is difficult to see from the second Hoor
ifno larger than the minimum required.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of a sign variance from six (6) square feet to eight (8)
square feet to allow the placement of a proj ecting sign at the property located at 313
West Broadway based on the findings contained in this report.
3.
Motion to deny a variance because no hardship exists, but call for a public hearing
to change the redevelopment plan and ordinance to allow 8 sq. ft. hanging signs.
If the DA T and Planning Commission believe that an 8 sq. ft. sign is okay at the
second floor, then perhaps the ordinance and comprehensive plan should be amended
accordingly.
4.
Motion to table the sign variance from six (6) square feet to eight (8) square feet to
allow the placement of a projecting sign at the property located at 313 West
Broadway until slLch time as more information can he gathered. Should the Planning
Commission recommend tabling this item, they must also direct staffto draft a letter
to the appl icant for an extension of the 60-day review period.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request for a sign variance from six (6) square feet to eight
(8) square feet to allow the placement ofa projecting sign at the property located at 313 West
Broadway. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report. If the
Planning Commission likes the sign, then alternative 3 should he selected.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhihit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhihit C:
Site Map
Sign Plan
Ordinance 334: Projecting Signs
t-
r
.
8:
-
CI)
CI)
-
C/)
\~.
.~.
....-
MAR-30-2000 07:58
...
..e
r;j ~
g c..
t1" -="'
e ~
Q) . 4.
g ~
<d .- ~
-i ~ ~
:> ~ ~
;,.~ to3
._ ~....J
CI'.Irv....;
<d ~-
.......0 8 5
- g.-
~ l..o 0
o <d::5
-;:: ~ ..
e.~ c
(I) -0 <d
:9 5.~
~ r;.-a
o 0 0.
U p.<
,...
EXHIBIT A
............ 0.':: '-...{
..
~
.
/
i
,
'---''''f..___~~~::=...
---..
i
.
,
~
i
I
,
J
I
;
/
y- t:-~1 i ~J
I ~ ~.I
"-~ ;~ I ~~ ~ II
:J~,. .5;1 ~I '
''''.1 +...J _.,.........,. .
~ ....... ~ ~-1 .
",'l ~ I ...-- _~ ,~""
1 Z -. i ~_ ..., _
.p:'. \'--
~ ',j ~--:/ -
... ,-_. ...
.~ ..-....1
:;<>'....... ''''4 "9
~ ~ ... ---. '.~
"'... ft..' 1..- ""2i .
L.. J (<(,: : -~:1 02
....., ,,-., ,. w
:~; Q -~ gf
I , ??~, M ri ;11_
l_ It --~ -;JJ I
~
,
,
/
,
/
/
/
/
l
I
!
/
to>
...
Uh\bt,- b
.
.
.
Q.
Proiecting Signs: Proiecting signs shall be permitted within the CCD
District but only in the "Broadway Downtown District" thereof as
defined by the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan.
Only one (I) proiecting sign may be erected per business. with no more
than two (2) such signs erected per building. subiect to the following
conditions: Proiecting signs
1. shall be only business identification signs.
!.L. shall be fronting on a public street.
iii. shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area.
!Y. shall be considered a wall sil!n for the Durposes of maximum
allowable sign area.
v. the edl!e of the sil!n closest to the building must be no fmiher
than 12 inches away from the buildinl!.
vi. may extend over the Dublic sidewalk. but shall not extend closer
to the public street than to within 3 feet from the backside of
curb.
Y!.L.
shall be at least 8 feet but not more than 12 feet in height above
walkinlZ surfaces or sidewalks.
viii. shall not be internally illuminated. but may be externally
illuminated.
This Ordinance shall become effectiye immediately upon its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this 13thdayof
By:
Rick Wolfstel
AYES:
NAYS:
September
1999.
C[~NTICELLO
By ~ ..#
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
~bl* ~