Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 05-02-2000 1. 2. 3. 4. . 5. . ..-' AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 2, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint lIerbst S tafT: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 4, 2000. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales and a variance to the minimum building size requirements for auto sales, or an amendment to the minimum building size requirements in a B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Dunlo Motors. 6. Discussion regarding an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would convert the Gold Nugget residential area to industrial uses. 7. Adjourn. . . - Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 MINlJTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Ilerbst StatT Present: leffO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM. Chair Frie thanked Acting Chair Richard Carlson for filling in for him at the regular meeting in March. 2. Aooroval of minutes of the regular meetin!.!: held March 7, 2000. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 7,2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Chair Frie abstaining. 3. Consideration of addin!.!: items to the agenda. Chair Frie addressed staff on an issue between the School District and the City commissions and staff and the lack of communication between them. This stemmed from an article in the Monticello Times regarding growth/population in the City. The members discussed ideas to better communicate with the School District. Jeff O'Neill added a discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan which was placed as Item 7. Roy Popilek added discussion regarding the City's pathways in regard to seal coating. This was placed as Item 8. Fred Patch wanted clarification on an item from the March meeting. This was placed as Item 9. 4. Citizens comments. None -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 5. Public Ilearing ~ 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: lIarold Shermer Steve Grittman provided the report. The applicant, Harold Shermer, is requesting side yard setback variances for Lot 6, Block I and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Parkside at Mcadow Oaks Addition, the required side yard setback for properties in the R-l District is 10 feet. Without the variance the buildable lot width at setback for Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 equals 40 feet. However, 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. The applicant must prove that they have non- economic hardship. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Scott Feldman, 950 Meadow Oak Drive, addressed the Planning Commission asking the reason for Mr. Shermer's variance request. Mr. Grittman explained the request was due to a gas line located near these three lots in question. Hearing no further questions from the audience, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . The members discussed the building pad sizes and it was stated by Fred Patch, Building OiIicial, that the pad sizes were equal and typical in size and are quite usable. It was noted that garages would have to be placed on the front side. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 2 AND 3 BLOCK 2, P ARKSIDE AT MEADOW OAKS ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. . 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for a perpendicular professional sign. Applicant: Metcalf. Larson & Muth, P.A. Steve Grittman provided the report noting the applicant's request for a 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. Mr. Grittman provided a copy of the Ordinance amendment relating to these types of signs which limits 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 DAT 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. A copy of -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 the DA T minutes of March 29, 2000 was provided stating their opposition to the variance by a 4 to 1 votc. Chair Frie opcned the public hearing. There was no one present and Chair Frie closcd the pubic hearing. Fred Patch, Building OfTicial, stated that a reduction in the sign copy could be done, removing some of the lettering, which would makc it possible to conform to thc City's ordinancc. It was notcd by the members that Planning Commission had spent enough timc on this item, and that thc Ordinance was designed to bc pedestrian friendly. DA T made no recommendation to change the ordinance, but remained ncutral. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A 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, BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, asked the Planning Commission to review information he provided from the Comprehensive Plan rcgarding future upgrades to "Northwest Monticello" which would be Broadway west of Highway 25. This information was brought to him by John Simola, Public Works Director. As stated in the comprehensivc plan, this area is a mirror of Northeast Monticello, particularly with rcspect to Broadway Street and the adjacent single family homcs. . O'Neill stated that thc County would be putting together a plan for improvements and will need thc City's input. Staff would have to determine the cost to the City of putting in the median, left turn lanes and moderate landscaping. Council Liaison Clint Herbst stated that he did not think the Council would approve of this. The Planning Commission gave City staff direction to follow through as per thc Comprehensive Plan, adding that it is not City staffs role to intcrpret thc Comprehensive Plan. 8. Roy Popilek asked to discuss the City's pathway systems rcgarding the use of such course gravcl for seal coating. He stated that roller bladers are not able to use the pathways when this course gravel is used. The membcrs concurred that finding another type of material or perhaps renting a machine to roll the pathways once the seal coating is done, should be looked into. Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated that there are other types of finer aggregate available. It was suggested that this request be put in writing to the City Council and Clint Herbst stated he would also bring this to the Council's attention. 9. Fred Patch, Building Official, asked for clarification on action taken at the March meeting regarding City stafT initiating action on zoning code amendments. He was advised by the members that they had discussed this item at length at their March meeting and feel that it is in their best intcrest to not authorize staff to initiate. . ~ --)- Planning ConHnission Minutes - 04/04/00 10. Adiourn. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. ,- Lori Kraemer, Recording Secretary . . -4- Planning Commission Agenda -05/02/00 5. Consideration of a ConditionallJse Permit for Auto Sales and a variance to the minimum building: size requirements for auto sales. or an amendment to the minimum buildinl! size requirements in a B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Dunlo Motors. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Dunlo Motors is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile sales facility on the property formerly occupied by Wendy's along Oakwood Drive. The existing building, currently vacant, consists of approximately 2,950 square feet in area. The applicant indicates that they intend to retrofit the existing huilding for sales and service, maintaining the parking lot for customer parking and vehicle display. The parcel adjacent to the west line is labeled as "future parking", and the site plan illustrates a zero setback for parking lot or display along that boundary. 'The Zoning Ordinance lists a number of conditions attached to the consideration of auto sales in the B-3 District. Almost all of the listed conditions would be complied with by the proposed use, with some discussion about landscaping and the parking and curbing along the west boundary. The primary issue is with the building size requirement. The ordinance statcs a minimum sales and display oiTice size fix such uses of 4,500 square feet, exclusive of Hoor space devotcd to mechanical repair. . The applicant is pursuing a variance to this requirement, or the City's approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to lower the building size rcquiremcnt to accommodatc the proposed use. Thc applicant argues that the access to the property resulting from the changes to the Highway 25/Interstate 94 interchange area have made other uses, including the fast food restaurant use, no longer viable. Variances require a finding that a condition unique to the property creates a non-economic hardship in putting the property to reasonable use undcr the regulations ofthe zoning ordinance. In this case, the property meets all basic dimensional standards of the ordinance and the B-3 District, and has legal frontage on a public street, although the method of access has changed. Only the proposed use as an auto sales facility causes the non-conformity under the current conditions. Even so, there is no physical condition which would prohibit the expansion of the building to the 4,500 square foot threshold. As a result, the variance criteria do not appear to be met by this application. . """"'.' Thc alternative option requested by the applicant is an amendment reducing the Hoor area for auto sales facilitics. Auto sales uses can have a tendency to maximize paved open sales area, and minimize building area. The 4,500 square foot threshold in the ordinance is designed to encourage a greater proportion of site utilization by building as opposed to open sales lot. In most cases, building size is directly related to employment and property value. These are issues on which the City has focused its economic development activities in the past. Reducing the building size would apply throughout the B-3 District, and would tend to limit both employment and building valuation. -1- Planning Commission Agenda -05/02/00 B. AL TERNAflVE ACTIONS Decision 1: ConditionallJ se Permit for Auto Sales in a B-3 District I. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP as proposed, based on findings that the proposed use would meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP with conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on findings that with landscaping, appropriate curbing, and other changes, the site is suited to the proposed use. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a findings that the use docs not conform to the requirements of the Ordinance in regard to building size. 4. Motion to table action on the CUP, pending additional information. Decision 2: Variance to Building Sizc for Auto Sales in a B-3 District 1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that the changed access to the site creates a hardship in complying with the performance standards for other uses in the district. . 2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that there is no physical hardship in complying with the zoning standards for the proposed use. 3. Motion to table action on the Variance, pending additional information. Decision 3: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Reducing the Building Size 1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment reducing the building size for auto sales uses in the B-3 District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an amendment to the required building size. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional information. c. STAfF RECOMMENDATION , Staff recommends tabling action on the CUP, pending the submission of a site plan which illustrates an expanded building meeting the CUP requirements in the District. Any approval should be consistent with the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. The proposal eliminates an area of green space in the paved area, and proposes to forego a green space requirement along the west boundary. The loss oflandscaped area is not recommended, particularly in large paved areas such as this site. -2- Planning Commission Agenda -05/02/00 The variance is not recommended due to the lack of physical hardship. Whereas the access pattern has changed in the area, the property is still highly visible and access is not confusing. StatTis aware of many B-3 uses, including fast food restaurants, in areas of poorer access which have continued to operate. An example would be Taco Bell and Burger King in Monticello. The amendment is a policy question which the Planning Commission and City Council need to decide, keeping in mind that sLlch amendmcnts aflect all properties in the District. As noted in the report, thrcshold requirements such as the one for auto sales arc designed to overcome perceived negative aspects of the proposed LIse. In this case, over-concentration of open paved parking and display is intended to be offset by the building standards. ATTACI-IMENTS Exhihit A - Site Plan/Site Description Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . , -3- o 00 09:02p Kathr~n Duncanson 812-998-0137 p.3 , , , , \, (0) ...1 1,5 --< ,-'. \ '. \.. \ \ , .... ,-'" IVCND/tJ. ~/GjV '" ";' ....,.~ .~ ;J-. "1.\1' C'''' o~ 7-~ 00 ~ ,'5>~<" "<~-~q,.. ',..;, ", L/fiHr .JTi/lNDARO () ~L ~ . PROPOSED OUTLot B .. (FUTURE P4RKING r~ ,11/.:. ~ ~ ~ if ~ ~ . -.... <\j- r--.. ~ C'\J ~ ~ , ......1:: 3 }\J~ ~& ~ " I).. l\l ~ ~ ~ '-- ~ L>.JMIIWIGE AM) l/rlLJr.,.. CA.r~~.s JM::JI....v W"-t BE t:V ,q;!~.D AI'7n'> ,-"'". Rn:t"tl>lNfi """ A:.<l"'l PA'NT,\I~, ftl Exhibit A.. '" I () ) \ I ,~ 'i' - Ii \ .. N 8G"5'2'12~E ~". -.J 00 OS:02p Kathr~n Duncanson 612-996-0137 p.2 4.DUNLO ~ ..oro.. INti: April 10, 2000 To: Jeff O'Neil, City Planner From: Andrew Duncanson Jeff, Attached is the proposed site plan for Dunlo Motors Monticello. 1) Remove curb where designated and patch the black top. 2) Leave flag pole. 3) Customer parking. 4) Western boundary - Dave Peterson and myself have a verbal agreement to develope the western boundary. When Mr. Peterson decides on the appropriate use and time to develope his parcel we will both develope the boundary so that it will meet cities codes. . 5) Lighting - Attached is a proposed lighting plan which will meet all the city codes. 6) The only issue seems to be the building size and we are not prepared to enlarge the building at this time. 7) Signs - Will meet all codes and the sign will be positioned for best visability, either (A) or (B). Respectfully Submitted, An~:~;'- ~~-- p~~~ir;~~1 , ~)(~', b\t A DuaIo Motors, Inc. 0 5241 West Broadway. Crystal, Minnesota 55429 763-533{)594 . 763.533.3572 fox . , Exhibit Z - Conditions of CUP Approval for Dunlo Motors I. Retain landscaped island north of the building. 2. Install five foot wide landscaped green space along west boundary line, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking areas. 3. Install continuous concrete curbing along the west side protecting the landscaping from the parking area. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . , / Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/00 6. Discussion regardinl! an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would convert the Gold Nugget residential area to industrial uses.. (JO) Verbal report to be provided by JeflO'Neill at the meeting.