Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-05-1989AGENDA
ROMMAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 5, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Dan MoConnon, and
Mori Malone
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 6, 1989.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow a deck to be
constructed within the side yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Michael and Dixie Talbott.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow a canopy to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, American Legion Post +260.
8:09 p.m. 5. Public Bearing - A variance request to parking and driveway
area curb requirements. A variance request pertaining to hard
surface requirement in driveway areae. A variance request
pertaining to off-street parking requirement of 25 stalls.
Applicant requests variance of 8 stalls. A variance request
pertaining to screening of storage areae from the public
right-of-way. Applicant, Pair's Garden Center.
8:15 P.M. 6. A conditional use permit request which would allow expansion
of storage and sales area associated with a landscape center
in the 5-4 zone.
ADDITIONAL INPORMATION ITEMS
8:39 p.m. 1. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow a building
addition to be built within the side yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Bondhus Corporation. Council
action: No action necessary, as the variance request did not
come before them.
8:41 p.m. 2. Public Bearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment to
Section 3-1, Non -conforming Buildings, Structures, and uses,
which would allow limited expansion of non -conforming
residential uses in a B-4 (regional business) zone.
Applicant, city of Monticello. council action: Approved as
per Planning commission recommendation.
8:43 p.m. 3. Consideration of a previous Planning Commission recommendation
to rezone evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and B to B-3
(highway business). Applicant, Rent Rjellberg. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Cmnmission recommendation.
Planning C mmission Agenda
July 5, 1969
Page 2
8:45 P.M. 4. Tabled conditional use request to allow expansion of an open
and outdoor storage as an accessory use in a B-4 (regional
business) zone. A tabled conditional use request to allow an
expansion of an open and outdoor sales as a principal and
accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) zone. Applicant,
Pair's Garden Oenter. Council action: M, action necessary,
as the conditional use request did not come before them.
8:47 p.m. 5. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 1, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
8:49 p.m. 6. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - HOMCELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 6, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lamm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone.
Members Absent: Dan MoCbnnon.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:32 p.m.
2. Motion was meds by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held May 2, 1989. Motion carried
unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent.
3. Public hearins_- A_variance request to allow a buildirl addition to be
Dunt wltnLn the 8100 vara seUicx requirement. Applicant, sonans
omiporaMfi.
Bondhus Corporation was represented by Mr. John Bondhus, owner of the
Bondhus Corporation, and Mr. Dick Van Allen. Boning Administrator, Gary
Anderson, indicated to the Planning Commission memI ra the location of
the proposed variance request as shown an the easel in front of the
Planning Ommmission mmembere. Mr. Van Allen indicated that in talking
with the gentleman from Burlington Northern Railroad, they do not have a
problem with a building being extended out to within three feet of their
property line and would also have no objection to constructing a roadway
to go around the building also. Mr. Van Allen, along with Mr. Bondhus,
then explained the use of the proposed new facility, that being a heat
treat facility: and instead of the 10 -foot aide wall height that is in
their existing building, the new building would need an 18 -foot side wall
height to accommodate the new heat treat equipment to be installed within
this addition. Problems with locating this addition on another part of
their building would be that they would encounter moving of the main
transformer which provides the electricity to this building and also
capping an existing well and drilling another well. With no further
input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public
hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Oommission
members.
Hearing no further input from the Planning Commission membere, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the variance
request to allow a building addition to be built within the side yard
setback requirement. The notion carried unanimously, with Dan MoM mon
absent. Reason for granting the variance request: The Burlington
Northern Railroad has no intense use of the existing railroad an the
tracks which go by this proposed variance request, nor would there be any
Impairment on the neighborhood, that being the Burlington Northern
Railroad or the neighboring properties which are adjacent to this
variance request. 'Rorie Is also not contrary to the intent of the
ordinance.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/6/89
4. Public eeerimnq -Consideration of an ordinance amendment to Section 3-1t
Man�or►rornin� Bu11a1n�, Structuress ana Oses wnlcn woula alta+ 11m1ted
eReinelon o3 non;Olnrormml reHtaentlal uses in a �4 (regional mwslneae)
Zane. Applicant, City or�t1ae110.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission meatieto the background to the proposed ordinance amendment
which would allow expansion of a non -conforming use in a B-4 (regional
business) sone. should a non -conforming residential structure be allowed
to expand? Does this greatly reduce the intent of the non -conforming
uses within the 8-4 zoning, indicating that will this provide additional
life expectancy of the non -conforming single family house structure. The
other major topic to deal with is, by allowing the non -conforming
structure to be expanded, does it also prohibit future development in
that it would be more expensive for a potential buyer to purchase the
properties, demolish, and then construct a new building or buildings
within this property for redevelopment.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mrs. Quick was present and explained to Planning Commission
members that it is their intent to stay there and they would like to
improve their property. If there had been some input from the commercial
property to the west of them, the Bridge Water Telephone Company, they
were not here and have not expressed any interest to them to purchase
their property. If they have not contacted the Quicks, evidently they
were not interested in purchasing the property.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Commission
member Cindy Lem felt that we should stick to the Comprehensive Plan and
not allow any expansion of a non -conforming use. Other comments brought
out from the Planning Commission membere were that in all likelihood,
development is probably at a minimum 3, possibly 9-10 years away from any
future development within that area and that if a person wanted to expand
their property, they should be allowed to fix up, maintain, and expand
their property. If the properties aren't demolished, they could be
purchased for small commercial type redevelopment in that being certain
business offices could relocate within a single family residence that
exists there.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve an ordinance
amendment to read as follows:
M 'Alterations or expansion may be made to a building containing or
related to a lawful, non -conforming residential unit when said
alteration or expansion will improve the livability thereof
provided the alteration or expansion will not increase the number
of dwelling units and provided that such alteration or expansion
shall not constitute more than 90 percent of estimated market
value. Said value shall be determined by City or County
Assessor. All setbacks associated with residential structure
expansion must moat R-1 (single family residential) yard
requirements.• �\
2 V
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/6/89
Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent. Motion to approve
the ordinance amendment is based on the finding that the proposal is
1) consistent with the Ooaprehensive Plan) 2) it's compatible with the
geographic area and the character of the adjoining lands) 3) the
ordinance amendment will not tend to depreciate the area for which it is
proposed) 4) the need for the proposed ordinance amendment has been
sufficiently demonstrated.
S. Consideration of a pprevious Planni!�$ Commission recommendation to rezone
Evergreens Suoolvision Outlots A and a to B-3 (nignway Duslness) zone.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members that some thought has been taking place since this was
before them and that they should possibly consider a different type of
zoning for the rezoning of Outlota A and B. It was the recommendation by
the City staff to rezone the property to PSM (performance acne mixed).
The developer, who was also present at the meeting, Mr. Kent Kjellberg,
explained better flexibility would be allowed by the developer and more
restrictions would also be placed on potential development by the City
through the use of a PLM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlaon closed
the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning
Commission members.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Imam, to rezone the evergreens
Subdivision Outlots A and B to PSM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
Motion carried unanimously with Dan KcConnon absent. Reason for approval
of the rezoning was it allows more flexibility for the developer to
develop with different types of uses which are allowed with it, and it
also allows more restrictive development in that there are more
restrictions that go on PSM properties when they are being developed.
G. Tabled conditional use request to allow expansion of an open_and outdoor
storeys as an ecceasoryy use In a e -a )reylonal Duainess) zone. A eenlea
ooncitionai use rogues[ to allay an expansion or an open ana outdoor
sales as a princlpat ane accessory use in a e -s iregionai Dueiness)
on
ze. Applicant, hair s Garcen Center.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members that the staff reo=wndation as submitted to them in
their agenda supplement should be changed somewhat and recommend that the
conditional use request be denied and brought forth to the City Council
for further action. The owner of the property, which is also the
applicant, Mr. Kevin Pair, was not present at the meeting and did not
indicate that he wasn't going to be at the meeting.
Therefore, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lem, to
deny the conditional use request to allow expansion of an aper and
outdoor storage as an accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) sone.
0
Planninq Commission Minutes - 6/6/69
And to deny the conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and
outdoor sales as a principal and accessory use in a B-4 (regional
business) tone. Motion carried unanimously with Dan MaCannon absent.
Reason for denial: It was felt that the staff had worked extensively
with Mr. Pair to Dome together with a site plan to be developed, and if
any variances would be needed, could be considered and set for public
hearing, which have not taken place at this time. It was also felt that
the City Council should consider some legal action to Mr. Kevin Fair,
Pair's Carden Center, in that he is operating an expansion of an existing
business facility without a permit.
ADDITiONAI. INPORMATION rfM
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, handed out compiled results of the
Joint City Council, Planning Commission, BRA, Industrial Development Commmittee,
and Monticello Chamber of oommxerce meeting held Monday evening. The
information was there for their review and they Could get back to City Staff
with any comments that they had on this.
1. Preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential subdivision
plat. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
2. Rezoning request to rezone residential unplatted property from R-3
(medium density residential) to PSM (performance zone mixed). Applicant,
J 6 K Properties. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
3. Variance request to allow 1) a parking lot to be constructed within a
5 -foot curb barrier to lot line requirement, and 2) to allow a driveway
curb cut to be in excess of the 24 -foot maximum allowed. Applicant,
J a K Properties. Council action: No action needed, as the variance
request did not come before them.
4. A variance request to allow a parking lot expansion to be constructed
within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line requirement. Applicant, J 6 K
Properties. Council action: No action required, as the variance request
did not Dome before them.
S. A variance request to allow an additional driveway curb cut within
125 feet of street frontage. Applicant, First National Bank. Council
action: No action required, as the variance request did not come before
them.
6. conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and outdoor storage
as an accessory use in a 5-4 (regional business) zone. A conditional use
request to allow an expansion of an open and outdoor sales as a principal
and accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) sane. Applicant, Pair'e
Carden Center. Council actions No action required, as the request was
tabled by the Planning Commission.
i�
(5)
planning commission Minutes - 6/6/89
Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the next
tentative for the Monticello planning Commission meeting for Wednesday,
July 5, 1989, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Motion by Cindy Loam, seconded by Mori Malone, to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary
toning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
3. Public Bear - A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed
witnin the Wle yara setnacx requirement. Applicant, Mlcnaei anO Dixie
Talbbtt. (G.A.i
A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Nr. and Mrs. Talbott are proposing to be allowed to construct a deck
addition onto the west side of their existing house. The proposed deck,
approximately 12 x 20 in size as noted on the enclosed site plan, will
encroach approximately 2 feet within the minimum 10 -foot side yard setback
as required by ordinance. As noted on the enclosed site plan, the new
proposed deck, if allowed to be constructed, would be approximately
35 feet from the nearest adjoining structure to the west. The proposed
deck to be constructed would also be within 2 feet of a side yard 6 -foot
drainage and utility easement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within
the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the
side yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOPPODMATION:
With the proposed deck as whom on the enclosed site plan, City staff
recommends approval of the variance request to allow the deck to be
constructed within approximately 2 feet of the minimum 10 -foot side yard
setback requirement. The rationale for approval of the variance request
is that the proposed deck addition would be approximately 35 feet from the
nearest adjoining property to the west of the Talbott residence.
D. .wee.rn.,.w DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance requestr Copy of the two
site plans for the proposed variance request.
A variance request to allow a deck
to be constructed within the aide
Yard setback requirement.
MTraAFZ C. DIXIE TALBOTT
1
F`
f� ��y `• • + •fit
A , '
ZSV�` r \
LbA OA.
zo
loss . (,.b ,• is
U.n
8.ry • 7. • 4.
%I•••
7.r
40t fw N• W.•.
J
4l+-.
L
44
I M.7r.Ia4L 7... •
N -so
t••i�s b" .•w
1a •/
1.40 As
toeM;V ts ■ 0•• •
tC,w
1. .,km
/6 zbi 16. x ►t i1• 0, •.
s t wY ✓i �..., R Im $4 t
l yJ1.. R 20 FF. A `gkw+C
✓ y� t
%,- Cs
t .r
�- L4 's
- i•IL
uw o- Gds)
�J�•rW,
so. 3'
3�.a.
ant`s
✓ 4T UL' s -)f tl-
Simi"
i 1p t.40 LL
lkln� N% -•o is 00 ( I ) sww b LA.X Ya.
maUj Y I(# q.aw "6%06 / w {+i .
NWP--a mock ,4, 118 I
(sued* Lt.) GIS w 0 �
bIw► Mrd s. /.we*4.I.w.•
GIkA.oar
tT 746.0
c-,4- lo• 46 6-s O w
tock
u"°x°,; °y
I1IRic .
SS36Z
J
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
4. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow a canopy to be constructed
within the tront yarn setbacK requirement. Applicant, Monticello American
Legion Post MO. IG.A.I
A. REPPRENCE AND BACKGROM:
The public hearing notice that was filed for this stated that it was to
allow a canopy to be constructed within the front yard setback
requirement, and it should have been stated to indicate the side yard
setback requirement. For determining the front yard, which is the front
yard on a property, the shortest side of the lot shall be considered the
front yard. In this case, the building faces Elm Street, which would be
considered a side yard setback even though the front of the building does
face Elm Street. So we should be considering this as a side yard setback
requirement and encroachment into the side yard setback requirement. The
American Legion is proposing to be allowed to construct a canopy addition
onto the front portion of their building. The proposed canopy is
approximately 6 feet in width by 10 feet long. The proposed canopy
addition to be constructed would be encroaching up to near the side lot
line. As noted on the enclosed site plan, the proposed canopy would be
the open side type canopy with just a roof over it and supported on the
building and also on two posts near the front. The new addition which is
constructed on the existing American Legion building brought the newly
constructed building addition up to within 11 feet of the aide property
line. Even though this may be considered portable in nature, it is still
a permanent type of canopy, as it is permanently affixed to the ground by
the posts which support it.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a canopy to be constructed
within the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a canopy to be constructed within
the side yard setback requirement.
C. STAPP RECOMMENUTION:
As you recall, previously the Planning Commission denied the American
Legion Post variance request to allow a building addition to be built
within the side yard setback up to within 11 feet of the minimum 20 -foot
side yard setback. To allow this, even if it is just a canopy type
addition to be constructed up to very near the aide property line, we
would be getting even closer to the side property line. Staff fails to
see the rationale for the variance request other than it would be a nice
addition attached to their newly renovated building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance requestr Copy of the site
plans for the variance request.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
5. Public Bearing - A variance request to parking and driveway area curb
requirements. A variance request $ertein3.I to vara surface requirement
im driveway areas. A variance request Qertaininq to off-streetrking
requirement of 75 stalls. Applicant requests variance of a stab. A
variance recpes
t eertainin9 to screening of storage areas from EFie punlic
rignt-or-way. Applicant, Fair's Garden Center. (J.0.)
A. REPERENCE AND BAMGROOND:
Kevin Pair has applied for a conditional use permit which would allow the
expansion of a sales and storage area associated with the operation of
Pair's Garden Center. As you recall, the Planning Commission, at its last
meeting, acted to recommend denial of the conditional use permit based on
the fact that insufficient site plan information was available to the
Planning Commission and because the applicant failed to appear before the
Planning Commission. Staff was unable to bring this recommendation to the
City Council when it was discovered that a form letter sent to Pair prior
to the previous Planning Commission meeting indicated to Pair that the
issue would be tabled if he was not present. As a result of this letter,
Planning Commission is compelled to return this item to the table for
discussion.
Since the previous meeting, Pair i.endscaping has been cooperative in
development of a site plan which has allowed staff to clearly define the
variances necessary prior to issuance of the conditional use permit.
This memo outlines the proposed site plan and outlines each variance
request. To help visualize the site plan and variance requests, it is
proposed that the Planning Commission actually visit the site during the
meeting. After the visit, please be prepared to make a separate motion
and a finding of fact pertaining to each variance request below.
PARKING REQUIREMENT
The proposed site plan provides for 17 parking spaces, which is 8 spaces
fewer than the spaces normally required for development of a retail store
and service establishment. The ordinance (3-5 B 18.(a)) states that at
least eight spaces, or one space for each two hundred square feet, be
devoted to public sales or service plus one space for each 500 square feet
of storage area. The proposed site plan varies from this requirement by 8
spaces.
In order to create the additional parking spaces along Broadway and retain
a portion of the sales area, the applicant has agreed to discontinue use
of the westerly curb cut on Broadway. Discontinuance of this driving area
has created additional apace for parking and sales area.
As you can ase on the enclosed site plan, a major portion of seven of the
spaces that front Cedar are actually located on the boulevard. Under
normal circumstancea, this would never be allowed. In fact, the ordinance
requires a five foot setback between the boulevard line and the parking
area. In this particular situation, the Planning Commission is asked to
"count" the non -conforming spaces as legitimate parking area stalls.
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
According to the City Attorney, the City is somewhat compelled to include
the lots fronting cedar as legal non -conforming lots because they have
existed prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance and/or because the City
has allowed the use to occur for many years without a notice of violation.
Parking demands associated with the operation of Pair's Carden Center
present a unique set of site plan problems. As a retail outlet for garden
materials, plants, equipment, etc., there are certain times of the year
when activity peaks. During mid and early spring, the needs for space for
inventory and the need for parking are at their highest. The question is,
should the City require sufficient parking for peak demands, or should the
parking requirement reflect the "average" demand?
Another factor influencing the parking requirement discussion is the
method by which parking spaces are calculated relative to the type of
retail activity conducted. The present system defines required parking
stalls based on the square footage of the retail and storage area. This
system of calculating proper parking capacity eamewhat penalizes those
retail establishments which, by the nature of their inventory, need a
large amount of retail area. Plants and trees take up considerable retail
space as compared to other types of retail items, yet the parking space
per square foot retail area is the same. As a footnote, I have found no
evidence or testimony from the Public works Department indicating that
Pair's Garden Center customer parking has created an off-street parking
problem, nor have I received parking spill-over caplaints from adjoining
businesses.
B. PARKING VARIANCE ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny variance request, direct applicant to amend site plan to show 25
parking stalls.
This could be done by removing sales area in front combined with
relocation or elimination of the storage bins.
2. Approve variance request on a trial basis. If parking demands warrant
expansion of the parking as shown on the site plan, then applicant
will adjust site plan accordingly an a condition of the conditional
use permit.
variance granted based on the finding that the proposed action will
not:
A: Unreasonably Increase the congestion in the public street.
B: Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to
the intent of this ordinance. furthermore, strict application
of the terms of this ordinance may result in exceptional
difficulties when utilising the parcel in a manner customary
and legally permissible within the district in which the
parcel is located.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
C. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PARKING STALL VARIANCE:
It is recommended that the 8 stall parking variance be granted on a trial
basis. It appears that the Garden Center has not significantly
contributed to parking problems in the area. In addition, parking
requirements associated with Garden Center retail sales may be slightly
overstated because of the manner in which the parking requirement is
calculated.
Although the structures are not configured on the property in a manner
that will allow development of additional parking spaces, it is possible
to expand the parking area at some time in the future if the demand
warrants such expansion. One could expand the parking area by three
stalls by replacing the sales area next to the storage bins with
additional parking, which would result in a variance of five stalls. In
order to completely eliminate the need for the variance, the rock bins
would need to be removed to make room for the additional parking.
CURB REDUIREMIM
The site plan presented requires two curb related variances. The
ordinance states that "all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter
curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be
closer than five feet to any lot line." This requirement does not apply
to the pre-existing legal non -conforming parking area that runs parallel
to Ceder Street and alongside the main structure. This requirement does
apply to the four new parking spaces that will front Broadway.
The other curb requirement states, "All commercial and industrial
off-street parking areas and driveways in commercial areas shall have a
six inch non -surmountable continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of
the parking area and driveways." This requirement applies to curb
locations outlined on the site plan in brown.
Curb Variance Number one - New Parking Stall Perimeter
This curb variance request pertains to the four new parking spaces
proposed that will front Broadway. The case for granting a variance to
the curb requirement in this situation is difficult to make. There is no
particular hardship that limits the ability of the applicant to meet this
requirement. There are positive reasons why a curb is appropriate in this
location. Establishing a curb line parallel to Broadway will assist in
defining the expanded parking area and may encourage customers to park in
the new area in order to relieve parking on the Cedar side of the lot. A
curb line parallel to Broadway will provide assurance of a buffer zone
between the Broadway right-of-way and the parking area, thereby avoiding
the current parking design problem associated with the stalls along the
front of Cedar. However, it might be wise to not install curbing between
the final stall and the sales and storage area so as to provide for the
potential of creating new spaces if the need demands.
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION - CURB VARIANCE NUMBER ONE:
Staff recommends that curb variance number one be denied.
Curb Variance Number Two - Perimeter Curb around Commercial Drive
The Planning Commission needs to determine the intent of the zoning
ordinance as it applies to this unique driveway arrangement. Is it
appropriate to require curbing along a drive that passes through a nursery
sales and storage area? Curb placement in this location will reduce the
functionality of the nursery sales area by reducing the ability to move
inventory, and the presence of the curb will be an obstacle to customers
viewing inventory. Furthermore, the drive area is not designed for use by
customer vehicles (except in front of the bins) and is used only
periodically by Garden Center vehicles.
Finally, curbing is often used to assist in directing storm water. In
this situation, curbing is not necessary to control drainage. This
.. lination of factors leads one to believe that the curb requirement may
not apply to the drive area within the sales and storage area.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION - CURB VARIANCE NUMBER TWO:
Staff recommends approval of said variance. It is our view that the curb
requirement was not intended to be applied in this particular situation.
Awarding the variance in staff estimation is not contrary to the intent of
- the ordinance.
DRIVEWAY SURFACING VARIANCE
The ordinance states, "all areas intended to be utilized for parking space
and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust
and drainage. Except in the case of single family and two family
dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class
five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent."
The proposed site plan requires a variance to this provision, as it is
proposed that a large portion of the driving area consist of red
limestone. This area is identified in yellow on the attached Bite plan.
A large portion of the driveway area will be in compliance with the
ordinance. This area is identified in red.
The area needing the hard surface variance consists of two basic areae.
The first area includes the nursery sales and storage yard. The second
area includes the driveway space that services the storage bins.
Hard Surface Variance Number One
Accoring to Garden Center employees, placement of a bituminous drive
-7 through the nursery and sales area will create a heating effect that will
have a negative impact on the viability of the nursery stock. Placement
J of a blacktop drive in this area will render the adjoining areae useless
-6.
N
t-1 lug 0 1 N \ 1
slltitdltt 11.E 111,' 1, 1'14 j
VAHIPOT OIN{IIIli IA I
AcceirAUv! iu iir' � 1 i' j '� �
crr�xrwri ait {, r. rr • r r ( ( ' 1 !
a.r✓ .4� t4 0 r
'r
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
as inventory storage and sales area. The existing surface consists of a
material that is relatively dust free and is exposed to consistent
watering which also reduces dust created by limited traffic and wind. In
addition, proper drainage has not been a problem in this area.
C. STAFF RECOMPOMTION - BARD SURFACE VARIANCE NUMBER ONE:
Staff recommends that granting a variance to the hard surfacing
requirement through the nursery and sales area is consistent with the
intent of the zoning ordinance for reasons stated above.
Bard Surface Variance Number Two
The second area proposed to be surfaced with limestone rather than
bituminous material is that area that serves as a loading area associated
with the rock storage bins. Traffic in this area consists of individuals
loading rock and also includes some heavy equipment operation associated
with periodic restocking of the bine. This area is different from hard
surface variance area number one because it receives more traffic and
because there to less nursery stock nearby that might be damaged by the
heat produced by a bituminous drive.
C. STAFF REOOMHENDATION - BARD SURFACE VARIANCE NUMBER TWO:
It is our view that it is the intent of the ordinance that traffic areas
be paved, and it appears that this area should be defined as a customer
and business traffic area. Therefore, staff recommends that the area in
front of the bine leading to the exit onto Broadway be surfaced with
bituminous material. The recommendation is further supported by the fact
that paving this area will not hamper the ability of the Garden Center to
maintain its live plant inventory.
VARIANCE REQUEST - STORAGE BIN SCREENING FROM THE RIGHI-OP-MY
According to the zoning ordinance, the rock storage bine should be
screened with materials that are 90% opaque. The plant materials, though
attractive, do not achieve 90% opacity. Planning Commission may wish to
grant the variance if it appears that the intent of the ordinance is
satisfied with the existing screening. If, in your view, the intent has
not been satisfied and the storage area represents a visual blight that
requires further screening, then the Planning Commission should deny the
variance and direct the applicant to plant addition Evergreens to provide
a denser screen.
In a related matter, Planning Commission my wish to "beef up" the
screening of the garage and equipment storage area from Broadway by
requiring a planting as noted in orange on the site plan. I will explain
this item when we visit the site.
-7-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
�i C. STAPP REf1X44ENDATION:
It is the view of staff that the intent of the ordinance has been
satisfied with the existing screening of the storage bins. even though
the screening is not 908 opaque, the material screened (wood pilings) do
not present a visual blight at the present level of screening.
Furthermore, as the plantings grow, the density of screening will
increase. It is staff's view that the intent of the ordinance will not be
violated by approving this variance because the goal of screening the bins
has been accomplished. This, of course, is a subjective conclusion.
Planning Commission may not have the same opinion] and if you feel the
proper level of screening has not been accomplished, then I would
recommend that you deny the variance request.
B. ALTBRNATM ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve one or more of the variance requests above.
2. Motion to deny one or more of the variance requests above.
C. STAFF ROOd4ffiIDATION:
See each individual variance request.
D. Avst wr.u:J DATA:
See selected excerpts from the zoning ordinance and copy of color coded
site plan.
.a-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
6. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow open or outdoor
service sale and rental as a principal ane accessory use. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE MID BACKGROUND:
In order for the landscaping center to legally expand its area of
operation, it must receive permission from the City in the form of a
conditional use permit. As you know, some months ago the landscape center
expanded without such permission and is now asking for permission to
expand "after the fact". Operation of the facility as it now exists would
require a considerable number of variances that the Planning Commission
and City Council might be unwilling to grant. Fortunately, the Garden
Center has been cooperative in development of the site plan, and it
appears that the business will work with the City in developing a site
plan that is acceptable.
Site Plan
Enclosed is a colored version of the site plan which will provide a
general overview of the proposed development area. As mentioned earlier,
we will be taking a walking tour to supplement information on paper.
Following are some "high pointe" of the plan.
The Plan calla for removing the westerly entrance and drive to Broadway,
thereby creating additional parking area.
A fence or landscape planting is scheduled for the entire perimeter of the
property in compliance with the ordinance.
The area previously used as a private drive and the equipment storage
areas in the rear of the structure will be paved with bituminous material.
LIST OF CONDITIONS
The existing plan meets all of the listed conditions associated with
outside sales and rental. However, the ordinance does state under
condition one that "outdoor sales connected with the principal use is
limited to 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use. This
percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit."
If Planning Comaaiesion desires to approve this permit, a higher percentage
must be identified as allowable. In this case, the percentage should be
increased to approximately 300% of the gross floor area of the principal
use, as the outside sales area is three times the size of the inside sales
area.
Condition two states that "outside sales areae are fenced or screened from
view of the neighboring residential uses." The existing site plan shows
either a fence or landscaping sufficient to comply with the ordinance.
Planning Coamission is naked to determine its preference.
Rhe remainder of the listed conditions are met if the site plan is
a executed.
-s-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
Following is a complete list of conditions that could possibly be added to
the existing list. Items on this list will vary depending on Planning
Commission decisions with regards to the variance requests. This list
assumes that no variances are provided. Remove each Stem below that is
satisfied via the variance request. Items checked are those conditions
that would be required if Planning Commission accepts every variance
recommendation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit request which would allow
expansion of open or outdoor sales area contingent on: Motion should
�dentify selected conditions from the list below).
1•,•,,c�x'A �3.
a. Developb>ent of 25 Arking spaces.
b. Development of curb system around parking expansion area located
on the Broadway side of the lot.
c. Development of curb system that surrounds the entire perimeter of
the parking and drive areas.
d. Development of bituminous parking throughout all parking and
driveway areas.
e. Development of bituminous drive in rock bin loading and unloading
area.
f. Development of landscaping as identified on site plan, including
development of like screening material designed to screen the
garage slorege area from the public right-of-way.
g. Installation of plant material that will screen the storage area
to a level of 90% opacity.
h. Deposit of funds in escrow account equal to the cost to install
improvements required in the conditional use permit.
i. Closing of the westerly Broadway access drive.
2. Motion to deny conditional use permit.
If the applicant fails to agree to Planning Commission suggested
conditions, then the Planning Commission has the option of
recommending rejection of the conditional use permit request. The
item would then come before the Council.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Excerpts from the zoning ordinance# Copy of color coded site plan.
1
IAL
-10-