Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-18-2006• • 0 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison: Staff: 1. Call to Order. Chairman Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Sandy Suchy, William Spartz Craig Schibonski Wayne Mayer Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien - NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted a quorum of the Commission, and the absence of Commissioner Schibonski. Commissioner Dragsten noted there were no June minutes include in the packet and requested that they be included in the August packet. 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a rezoning from R-1 (Single -Family Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business). A_uplicant: David Thielman/Gatewav Music Festivals. Kimberly Holien presented the staff report, explaining that the subject site is surrounded by single family residential uses on all sides. The site currently contains a single family home that has been converted into office space. Holien reported that the current use is a legally non -conforming use in the R-2 District. The applicant has indicated that he is looking to relocate his operation, and a buyer is interested in the property. The prospective buyer would like to put a full service spa in the existing building. Holien stated that staff has determined that the proposed spa would be consistent with the beauty parlor permitted use within the B- 1. The building is consistent with the architectural appearance of the surrounding single family homes, and no modifications are proposed for the building exterior. Holien noted that the site is located one %2 block west of the Central Community District and the fronting street, Broadway, is a major collector route. Holien indicated that the comp plan does identify some drift of CCD uses into adjacent area. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/18/06 Holien stated that the purpose of the B-1 district is to provide for neighborhood uses such as barber shops, small office spaces, beauty shops and other essential services. The proposed spa use would include a small amount of retail, which would be considered accessory to the principal use. The applicant's prospective buyer has indicated that there would be up to nine employees, with a daily average of 4-7. They expect about 35 clients per day. Staff has reviewed the site plan and seen no major issues with the proposed use, other than parking. Holien stated that when analyzing parking, there is no exact reference for barber shops or salons within the code. The City has traditionally used a figure of 1 parking space required per 200 square feet for service or retail establishments. The applicant initially indicated that the site provides for 24 spaces, although 31 are required. After meeting with the applicant, they measured and completed a more accurate count. The applicant has indicated that they will be able to supply a total of 33 spaces. As such, he would meet the 1 space per 200 square feet code requirement. Spartz inquired if anyone would be living in the building. Holien stated that the applicant will need to clarify that item. O'Neill noted that while the downtown might grow, the comp plan also shows trying to keep a residential character to the area. O'Neill stated that this is a remnant parcel which was previously a funeral home and continues as a lawful non -conforming use. O'Neill asked if the amount of parking available could be opening the door to a higher intensity use. Holien responded that most cities use 3 spaces per chair calculation for this type of use. Dragsten noted that either way, there are enough parking spaces. Holien noted that they had requested that the applicant stripe parking areas. Suchy inquired whether there is a guarantee that this spa client will purchase the property; in other words, doesn't the rezoning open the site up to any permitted use in the B-1. Holien concurred and listed the permitted uses. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Darren Anderson, 513 W. 3'd Street stated that his property is directly behind the subject property. He sought confirmation that the rezoning does not change the zoning of those around it. The Commission noted that the rezoning is for the subject parcel only. Anderson stated that there is currently a business running out of this location and inquired whether the use would be converted or there would be an addition. Holien confirmed that he is converting the use. George Liefert, 203 Minnesota Street, stated that he is concerned about the effect on his property. Dragsten responded that the site is currently zoned R-2; B-1 will allow different uses on that site. Leifert inquired whether the spa would advertise. Dragsten stated that the applicant would need to respond to that question. David Thielman, 1344 Prairie Creek Lane, addressed the Commission as property owner of the business located at 530 W. Broadway. Thielman stated that the current business has 16 employees that are there every day. He indicated that he did not think the neighborhood would see much difference in traffic. Thielman stated that the signage would be similar in size to what was there when the funeral home was there. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 07/ 18/06 Anderson asked Thielman to verify the parking arrangement in terms of aisle width and size of parking stalls. Thielman replied that the dimensions used were based on City ordinance at 9' x 20' . Thielman indicated that the drive aisle is wide enough to accommodate a garbage truck. Anderson also noted that there is a S' green space around the parking area. Anderson inquired if there is any change proposed for external lighting of the property. Holien indicated that he has not submitted a lighting plan, intending that the client intends to keep current lighting. Any additional lighting would need to be directed away from adjacent property. O'Neill stated that light sources have to be hooded, no spill -over. . Dragsten noted for the record a letter received from Richard and Ginger Carlson, neighboring property owners, who opposed the rezoning, citing it as spot zoning. O'Neill just added that he had also received an email from the property owner to the east, who did not object to the rezoning, but did want to make sure landscaping is installed as required and that parking would be in right location. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Suchy acknowledged that this rezoning seems appropriate in this case due to traffic on Broadway, and noted it has been a commercial use for a long time. Suchy inquired about the proposed hours. Thielman stated that he does not know the client's proposed hours, although his business is 7 days a week, 24 hours each day. Mayer asked about the 4 garage stalls included within the count and whether they would truly be 2 deep. Mayer asked how he would be handling those. Thielman responded that those would be for staff, although they may not be needed. Spartz asked if this is R-2, can someone currently operate a salon as a home -based business. O'Neill stated that a home -based business would be allowed, only under special home occupation permit, a similar process to a CUP. Precedent has never allowed more than 1 or 2 staff for such uses. Dragsten clarified that they would also need to live there. Dragsten stated that his concerns are being consistent in calculating parking and parking setbacks, signage and lighting. He inquired if the use move forward, does the the buyer need to get permission to get lights. O'Neill stated that as long as they meet minimum standards, they would be permitted. Holien stated that in B-1, signage is allowed at no more than 100 square feet, in any combination. O'Neill commented on the spot -zoning, stating that the purpose of the B-1 district is to provide retail to the area. The intent is somewhat of a spot zone to serve a small area. The question is whether the spa will be drawing from a larger area. The Commission will need to weigh that. Dragsten stated that he isn't sure this is a neighborhood use. Hilgart stated that he is not sure that they should be so concerned about parking, as he doubts the potential client would use all 6000 square feet of this building. Hilgart noted that the applicant is seeking the rezoning regardless of this proposed client. Hilgart stated that it has been a business and has been used that way for quite some time. With a neighborhood business, it is difficult to expect to run a business with a block or two of 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 07/ 18/06 • business clients. Hilgart stated that he preferred such uses would come forward as Conditional Uses. Dragsten stated that they don't need to. O'Neill stated this district is rare and that in this case, a CUP may be appropriate. O'Neill stated that the Commission could table the request to rezone and amend the district language relating to Conditional Uses. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 530 W. BROADWAY TO THE SEPTEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE REGULAR SEPTEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE B-1 DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration to review for discussion an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapters 6A (Single Family Residential) and 7A (Single Family Residential). Applicant: Citv of Monticello O'Neill noted that staff would be preparing information related to amendments for the R-1 A and R-2A and would present them at the September meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE R1-A and R2-A ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4- 0. 6. Consideration to review for discussion a draft framework for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments. Holien referred the recent review of Monticello's PUDs, starting that the Commission had indicated that a more structured approach would be preferred. Using feedback from the review, staff had drafted a PUD points system, which was included in the Commission's packet for review. Holien stated that it is an objective points system to give us a more concrete method of determining superior project and is intended to uphold the goals of the PUD ordinance's purpose and the comprehensive plan. She noted that the points values listed may need adjustment in weighting. Holien explained that under this points system, any applicant would need to meet a minimum number of points to apply for PUD. If an applicant doesn't achieve the points necessary, they need to use straight zoning approach. Dragsten asked if this system is used in many other cities. Holien stated that it is. Dragsten noted that an applicant would need to achieve 75% of possible points for it to be a PUD; he inquired if there are any bonuses for going beyond that number. Holien stated that the 75% is required just to apply for PUD, it does not constitute a formal Commission or Council review or approval of the PUD itself. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 07/18/06 Mayer stated that he was not in on the original discussion and asked why 75%. Holien stated that was just a benchmark. O'Neill stated that staff haven't taken this against existing PUDs to get a feel for the application of this. Dragsten stated that a lot may depend on size of a development. If a developer has a small project, this amount of points might be difficult to achieve. Dragsten asked for clarification on a number of items listed within the criteria and Holien provided further detail and made noted for future revisions. Mayer stated that he would like to see the criteria applied to existing projects, including Carlisle Village at original application and now, and also with Sunset Ponds. O'Neill asked if far as calculating, it is important for the same person to always do this. Holien stated that the system is relatively objective. Mayer stated that it seems like points can be accumulated before presenting a project to the Commission, which may inhibit the Commission's filtering. Dragsten stated that the intent is that if the developers do this form and meet the points, they can apply. Holien noted that a narrative and booklet with information detailed would be required. Spartz stated that in a PUD developers always want density, but that isn't referenced here. Suchy commented that the elderly population is discussed frequently. She commented that perhaps developers should be given a credit for providing life -cycle housing. O'Neill stated that could be adjusted. Dragsten stated that if we start giving bonuses for that, we may end up giving bonuses for other areas. Schumann proposed that staff review some of the mentioned developments and possibly other in terms of the scoring criteria, make adjustments to the criteria as noted and then provide an update to the Commission in September. The Commission agreed. 7. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 1 �Recorde f 0