Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-03-2005 . MINUTES REGULAR MRETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDA Y, MAY 3RD, 2005 6:00 P.M Comm i ssioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: G ten Posusta Staff Present: Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, John Simola, and Angela Schumann I . Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and noted all Commission members were present and quorum established. Chairman Frie noted the absence of Mr. O'Neill. 2. Consideration to the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, April 5th, 2005. . Chairman Frie requested that the minutes of the April meeting be revised to correct minor errors. Frie also requested clarification from staff on the two additional conditions added to the approval of the Poplar Hill item at April's meeting. Frie noted that the Commission had added two conditions and they were IHissing from the Council action on that item. Frie requested that staff provide a copy of what Council received and look into make certain the two conditions were reviewed by the Council. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF Tl-lE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 51", 2005, WITH MINOR CHANGE AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. . Dick Van Allen, 6448 River Mill Drive, addressed the Commission in regards to the Open and Outdoor Storage itenl that would be heard later on the agenda. Van Allen stated that he is opposed to the proposed amendment due to concerns on the setbacks, buffer yard and screening requirements, and trash handling restrictions. Van Allen Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . suggested that the proposed amendments be considered instead as potential covenants specific to new industrial developments. Additionally, he requested that the Commission carefully consider the placement of new residential development in relationship to existing industrial development. Van Allen submitted a letter to the Commission outlining these concerns. Hilgart asked if Van Allen owns a business in Monticello. Van Allen stated that he used to work for Bondhus Coporation. Frie asked Van Allen ifthe letter represents his opinion only or that of others as well. Van Allen responded that it was only his opinion. Frie asked if Van Allen was involved with the ad hoc committee who assisted in the development of the ordinance. Van Allen replied that he was not. Frie thanked Van Allen for his comments. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Amendment to Ordinance for Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, noting that the proposed ordinance amendment creates a standard that is cascading in nature, being more forgiving in heavier industrial ares and becoming stricter in the lighter industrial use areas. The ordinance amendment rose out of a task force review of the current ordinance. After briefly reviewing the amendment, GriUman stated that staff recommends adoption. . Chairman Frie opened the publ ic hearing. Bill 'fapper, owner of industrial businesses at 2 I 2 Chelsea Road and 324 Edmonson A venue, spoke to the Commission on the amendment. Tapper applauded the efforts of those who have worked on changing the ordinance, but expressed that he is concerned about SOlne of the details of the ordinance. Tapper explained that his concerns were related to clarifications on the 100% screening requirements, the requirement that storage be kept behind the building line, and the screening of garbage areas, especially in 1-2 areas. Tapper noted that the City maintenance garage had unscreened dumpsters. Tapper requested more realistic solution to the garbage storage issue. Tapper suggested tabling the amendment again for further clarification of the issues mentioned. .Jay Morrell, owner of industrial property at 140 I Fallon Ave, addressed the Commission on the matter, also expressing appreciation to staff and those who worked on the amendment. Morrell stated that he would also I ike clarification on other issues that had been discussed at length in the committee meetings. Morrell cited ordinance requirements for fencing at 8 feet, which puts a large amount the industrial park in violation. Morrell also questioned whether fencing was subject to the saine setbacks as buildings. Morrell referred to the letter he sent in regard to the proposed amendment, which listed the same concerns. Morrell also recommended tabling the amendmcnt. I Icaring no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. . 2 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Frie asked if the Morrell and Tapper agreed that different districts justify differential treatment in terms of outdoor storage. Tapper and Morrell stated that they don't have a problem with the outline as presented, they are just seeking further detail. Frie asked Patch and Grittman for information as a result of the task force meetings in relationship to the items mentioned. Grittman responded that the height limitation for permitted fences is 8'6". Grittman stated his bclicfthat the amendment is appropriate, noting that a CUP is rcquired if the fence is extremely tall. The trash handling requirements are as is in the current code. Grittman stated that although it is easy to find examples of non-compliance with trash handling, he belicves that screening is a reasonable request, noting that when the cquipment is screened and contained properly, it is not considered outdoor storage. Grittman commented that in terms of defining screening, it is reasonable to clarify the definition and a good recommendation. Patch noted that fences beyond 6' require a building permit. Additionally, fences taller than 8'6" require a CUP and structural engineering. Patch urged caution on flexing the amendment on this due to codc requirements. Frie asked Tapper and Morrell if they fclt that the task force had an evenly distributed representation. Morrell confirmed that statemcnt. Morrell commented on the new industrial park, stating that if strict standards worked for the City in terms ofthe type of industry sought, those are appropriate. However, in his industry, Morrell stated that he would like more Ilexibility. . Dragsten and Grittman confirmed that construction waste and sites arc exempt from the screening requirements. Spartz inquired whether both fencing and landscaping should be required when an industrial use abuts a residential use. Grittman stated that the proposed ordinance wouldn't necessarily require both, as long as the screening is 100% opaque. Suchy stated that she understood the structural conccrns and other issues related to fencing, but stated that she also wants Commission to be able to be as flexible as possible with the business community. Suchy asked if it is possible to consider adding a stipulation that fencing must be neutral in color. Posusta agreed that colored fencing can be an issue. Posusta noted that one ofthe primary purposes for amending the ordinance was related to fencing and screening. Posusta stated that he did not believe all of the issues related to those items had been addressed and also recommended tabling so they could be further defined. Patch noted that in terms ofthe proposcd amendment, a lawful, non-comfonning use will be grandfathered in. Unlawful non-conforming uses would not be allowed. Frie stated that there are so many non-compliant uses, however that City is not staffed to handle the blight. Frie suggested that the ordinance amendment may now allow some of the non- compl iant uses. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AMENDMENT TO RESOLVE ISSUES RELKnm TO " ., Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . FENCING, SCREENING AND LANGUAGE DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Chairman Frie requested that representatives from all industrial districts be notificd of the next committee meeting to discuss the amendment. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit allowing for the intensification of an existine. drive-up convenience fast food establishment in a B-3 (Hie.hway Business) District. Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting that the CU P amendment is intended to allow a second order board adjacent to the existing. At McDonald's request, the itcm was tabled at April's meeting. McDonald's representatives had met with City staff to discuss and resolve thc conditions noted in the staff report. As a rcsult, they had revised their plan to provide additional stacking space, allowing more vehicles to move through the drive- through more quickly. McDonald's has also added the recommended landscaping and has agreed to work with the City to reduce the glare at edges of property. Grittman statcd that staff is recommcnding approval based on the revised plan. Dragsten asked if there is room to back out of the parking area with this plan. Grittman indicated that this plan does accommodate backing. . Spartz asked if staff has been able to ascertain whether this arrangement has been used in other locations. Frie stated that he had researched this and had seen locations in St. Cloud where it worked well. Suchy asked if there was sufficient room betwecn the overflow parking and second lane to allow for a passing car. Grittman responded that with a dimension of 21 feet, thcre should be ample space to drive through. Chairman Fric opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Frie closed the public hearing. I Iilgar1 stated that he believed the second order board was a good idea as it would potentially el inl inate problematic veh icle stacking. Spartz noted the bus parking on the northeast side of the building, as well as the exit door that comes out east side of bui Iding. Spartz explained that his concern is that pedcstrians will be going across two lanes oftratlic to reach the parking areas. Jerry Roper, representative for McDonald's, responded that an option would be to put a railing in to make sure that pedestrians stop to observe before crossing. Suchy agreed with Spartz, citing her research ofthis item, and stated that the railing at that location would be an appropriate safety measure. . Patch commented that it might also be worthwhile to have a stopping space also the east sidc for pedestrians. 4 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Posusta commended McDonald's for trying to eliminate stacking issucs onto Oakwood. Frie asked if anyone was present from SuperAmeriea. No representative was present and staff noted that they had not received any comments from SA. Frie asked Grittman if the conditions have all been satisfied. Grittman agreed that conditions have been met. MOTiON BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CUP AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED PLANS AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND TilE PROPOSED SITE. MOTiON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A SAFETY RAILING ON EAST SIDE AND SURFACE FOR PEDESTRIAN S'rOPPING. MOTION TO AMEND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. . MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP AS AMENDED CARRIED. 7. Public Hcaring - Consideration of a reuuest for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storae.e for the storage and rental of vehicles in a B-3 (Hie.hway Business) District. Applicant: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Grittman reviewed the staff report, referring to the applicant's sketch plan for an open and outdoor sales use along Sand berg Road. Grittman noted that Enterprise as an office would be an allowable use; the storage of cars in the front yard requires the CUP. Grittman indicated that based on the conditions listed in the ordinance, the open and outdoor storage cannot take up required parking spaces for the site. The ordinance also requires that the storage area be screened. Grittman stated that the reduction of parking space by rental cars would excerbate an already tight parking situation and that staff is recommending denial due to those issues. Enterprise representative Rick Mendlick addressed the Commission. Mendlik stated that Enterprise would not actually store vehicles on site. The cars are staged there for when a customer arrives to pick up the rented vehicle. Mendlick noted that screening the parking would block any view of the building and could create a safety situation. Mendlick agreed that Sandberg is a congested street. . Frie stated that it seemed that the plans submitted were not completc in comparison to other conditional use permit requests. Frie asked if that was due to the existing building status. Grittman confirmed, indicating that in a majority of cases, CUP requests require all applicable plans. Grittman noted that the existing site allowed for some flexibility. 5 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Frie askcd if the applicants were aware of the six regulations as outlined in the CUP ordinance. Mendlick indicated that they had received information relating to conditional use requests. Frie commented that if Enterprise were approved, they would be approved based on a number of vehicles allowed. Suchy asked where the vehicles would be stored in the winter, during snow removal. Pat Wade, Enterprise representative, responded that Enterprise has relationships with local business which would allow them to utilize temporary parking. Suchy asked if all of Enterprise's facilities have outdoor parking and whether they were concerned about possibility for crime if cars arc sitting for a period of time. Wade responded that they are careful with security and lighting. Spartz noted that he had similar concerns on parking and safety. Frie stated that Sandberg is routinely clogged and asked staff who was the problem. Posusta responded that General Rental has no parking for their employees and barely any for their customers. Posusta noted that rental equipment takes up the required parking spots. Posusta stated that the road cut-off is also a problem. Posusta stated that the current situation shouldn't restrict Enterprise and also stated that the screening requirement seems to be unreasonable in this case. Frie agreed that while it may not be fair to deny based on an existing condition, safety is a major concern. hie asked Simola about winter snow removal. Simola stated that Sandberg is always a problem. . Dragsten stated that safety is his largest concern, as well as the fact the request doesn't meet ordinance. Hilgart asked what was located in the building previously. Grittman responded that it was a lighting store and noted that under the ordinance requirements, the building should have 16-20 spaces. Currently, the parking lot is half of what it should be. Frie asked if there a possibi lity of making use of adjacent properties for vehicle storage. John Johnson, property owner of the site, stated that there is room on his autobody business site. Frie asked appl icant and Cirittman if allowing storage at that location would be feasible. Both indicated they could workout the issue. Frie's reconuncndation is to continue the item to allow staff to resolve this issue. lIilgaJi stated that as long as rental cars aren't parked on street or in the building's parking lot, it would be acceptable. Dragsten, Suchy and Spartz was receptive to another review of plans illustrating that option. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR THE STORAGE AND RENTAL OF VEHICLES IN A B-3 (IIIGHW A Y BUSINESS) DISTRICT TO THE '/UNE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. . 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage for the storage of scrap metal and similar materials associated with business use in an I-I (Light Industrial) District. Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the location and zoning district of the request. Grittman stated that the applicants are showing the proposed storage area in the center of a loop drive. Under both the current and proposed ordinance for open and outdoor storage, the appl icants would comply. As a result, Grittman reported that staff is recommending approval. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Steve Budd, owner of Integrated Recyling, clarified that the conditional use permit request was also for the 13' high fence required for open and outdoor storage screening. Budd stated that IRT does have a plan frOI11 an engineer and noted that the steel fence would match the building. Dragsten stated that the fence will improve the site dramatically. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CUP FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AND A 13' FENCE MEETING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS USE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Publ ic Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Pennit for a Planned Unit for on off-site Inonument Sil!.ll in a 8-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Premier Banks Grittman provided the staff repOli, stating that the proposed use would accommodate a new bank faeility along School Blvd and Ilighway 25. Grittman referred to the reeent replat for Prairie Ponds 2'''' Addition, which created three parcels. This request would be sited on one of the three parcels, which are zoned 8-4. Grittman indicated that the CUP for PUD is to accommodate the off-site sign requested. Grittman stated that the applicants are requesting one sign in southeast corner of the parcel, and one adjacent to the Deegan Avenue, along their access road. Cirittman commented that in reviewing PUDs, staff look for a superior project in terms of design or amenities. In a trade-offfor the extra sign, the applicant has suggested site improvements including islands, landscaping, etc. Grittll1an noted that the applicant is also showing a curb termination to allow for a second user of north side of property. Grittman stated that staff recommend that two Inonument signs be allowed as pari of the PUD request, rather than the pylon and monument sign, Grittman noted that the request from Arby's later in the agenda would also be subject to the PUD adopted as part of the plat. Spartz asked why the applicants are asked to eliminate the two parking stalls. Grittman stated that corner parking tends to present problems, and these aren't needed to meet requirements. 7 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Chairman Frie opened the publ ic hearing. Wayne Elam of Nelson Deve lopment addressed the Comm i ssion representing Premier Banks. Elam presented documents showing buildings and signage, stating that Premier Bank has a small portion of the oft-:'site sign. Elam was not sure why staff would allow two monuments rather than pylon and monument. Elam stated that the pylon sign is elevated, which allows better visibility, while the brick would be more obtrusive. Grittman stated that in general, the City would seek less elevated signage and noted that the wall signage on the building is also an elcvated sign. In faet, monument signs are less obtrusive and blend in with site improvements. Elam noted that tenants on lots one and two would not have signage in addition to the shared monument. Ifthe pylon is not allowed, they may seek additional signage. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Suchy commented that she prefers the recommended monwnent sign package. Suchy inquired whether the picture presented reflects the landscaping that will appear on site. Elam stated that they will work with staff to upgrade the landseape plan. Suehyasked if the sign would display bank messages. Elam stated that it would. . Oragsten asked ifthe monument sign would be for two additional users outside of the bank lot and if Premier owns the other two lots. Elanl stated that they do not own the other two lots and that the monument sign would inelude those users. Dragsten statcd that the Planning Commission has no way of knowing what square footage the eventual users would need for signage and stated that in that case, the pylon may make the most sense. Frie asked if the PUD allows the height flexibility to three stories. Grittman respondcd that it does. Posusta stated that he would like to see additional arehiteetural features on this building, especially because of the area and the height of the building. Frie asked if the additional landscaping required will satisfy some concerns over appearance. Posusta stated that only landscaping is difficult because the building is three stories tall. Frie inquired whethcr the bank will be using all of the building. Elam commented that space in the building would be rented. Frie asked if the Commission has any authority over who rents spaee. Grittman stated that as long as they are permitted uses, they are allowable as renters. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBI'l" Z AS FOLLOWS: I. The sharcd acccss casement agreement for the private drive shall be reviewed in detail and approved by the City. . 8 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. . II. 12. 13. 10. . Planning Commission Minlltes 05/03/05 The applicant should eliminate two (2) parking stalls on the southeastern pOJiion of the site that do not meet the Ordinance requirements. All striped areas within the parking lot shall be landscaped and surrounded by raised concrete curb. The entire perimeter parking lot shall be curbed, although the future expansion area to the north may be rolled asphalt until that parcel is developed. A minimum of six (6) parking islands shall be identified within the parking lot area. The bank drive-isles shall be a minimum often (I 0) feet in width from the edge of curb to the edge of curb. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the building and site area, near both entrances, and near the trash enclosure. All landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of one year landscaping guarantee. Tree and shrub plantings should exceed the ordinance requirements to support the use of PUD on this site. The photometric plan shall be revised to meet the maximum foot candle requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant shall provide building details orthe trash enclosure for review and approval. 'fhe overall sign plan shall be reduced to include either two monument signs or one pylon sign within the site area. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans arc subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Attorney. Additional comments from City Staff, Planning Commission or City Council. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. hie asked Dragsten if he wanted to amend the motion to address Council member Posusta's comments. Dragsten stated that he did not want it as part of the formal motion, bllt that it should be noted as a recommendation of the Commission. MOTION CARRIED. PlIbl ic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for a drive- UP convcnience fast food establishment in a B-4 (Regional BlIsiness) District. Applicant: Arby's/RTM Restaurant Properties CUP Grittman reviewed the staff repOti, noting that the proposed site is also on the Prairie Ponds 2nd Addition plat, located at the northwest intersection of State Highway 25 and School13lvd. In terms of stacking space, general site access, parking requirements and setbacks, Gritttnan indicated that the applicants meet the requirelllents of the ordinance. Grittman stated recOtlll11ended that a sidewalk connection from the sidewalk on School 9 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Blvd to the front sidewalk area and a sidewalk connection from Deegan Avenue to the internal sidewalk through the parking lot delineator. Grittman also recommcnded that additional plantings be eonsidered between the building and Highway 25 and around the trash enclosure area to screen the view of this structure from traffic. Grittman stated that the lighting plan should be significantly scaled back to meet the City's lighting regu lations. Grittman noted that the site is a part of a PUD, which is proposed to have additional signage for business oceupants along the main entrance from Deegan Avenue. As a part of a PUD, staff would recommend that the applicant's requested pylon sign be rcdesigned to be a monument sign along Highway 25. Grittman noted that the proposed sign plan cxceeds ordinance standards along all three street frontages. Suchy inquired whether an additional condition could require that the exterior trash enclosure be construeted ofthe same materials. Grittman stated that such enclosures are normally of the same matcrial, although staff is also rccommending additional landscaping. Suchy asked iftherc would be a place tor outdoor seating as an additional landscaping treatmcnt rather than accolllmodating more parking than required by code. Grittman noted that the plans illustrate a well-landscaped site. Chairman Fric opened the public hearing. . John Bogart, Bogart Pederson Engineering, spoke to the COIlllnission on behalf of Arby's. Bogart respondcd to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z, stating that the majority of conditions can and will bet met. Bogart statcd that in response to Suchy's cOlllmcnts, the trash enclosure is of the same material as the building. Bogart stated that hc will also discuss with RTM whcther they will add outdoor seating. In response to the comment on signage, Bogart stated that the applicant would like the pylon rathcr than monument signage for visibility and cost purposes. Frie asked Grittman if staff is receptive to changing condition two, or working it out prior to Council Bogart stated that the elient's request is to have a pylon, which they feel is consistcnt with area. Frie asked Grittman if Commission has the latitudc to allow pylon thc pylon. Grittman indicated that they do have that authority. Kcn Dolarski, Arby's reprcscntative, provided fUliher dctail on the building's architecture. Dragstcll asked if the entrance drive cOining in is a private cntrance and if not, whether there would be a maintenance agreel11ent. Grittman stated that a cross easement is requircd as it is a private drive. Spartz asked the Arby's representatives tor a timeframe on the project. Dolarski stated that he expects the pcrl11it materials to be submittcd within two weeks. Once approved, they would have a 90 day construction period. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS, WITH THE CONDITIONS FOUND TN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 10 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . I. Adding a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the restaurant from the pathway on School Blvd and from the sidewalk on Deegan A venue. 2. Work with the City to ensure that site lighting will be in conformance with city regulations. 3. Revise the landscape plan to add shrub plantings along Highway 25 4. Revise the landscape plan to add signifiwnt shrub plantings around the trash enclosure. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISJONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 11. Public Hearing.- Consideration of a reljUest for a Conditional Use Permit tor first-floor residential development and Preliminary Plat for a tour-unit townhome development in the CCD (Central Communitv District). Applicant: Dennis James Custom Builders Grittman presented staff report, stating that Dennis James is proposing a tour-unit project of two twin-home buildings on a parcel along 6th Street between Maple and Linn Streets. The project area is zoned CCD, Central Community District, which requires a conditional use permit to allow ground tloor residential based, subject to consistency with the downtown revitalization plan, and density rcstrictions. Grittman noted that the property is surrounded by residential uses on the north, east and west (single family) and the south (multiple family). . Grittman repolied that the property is only permitted a maximum of2 units although the plan does meet the more general twin home density requirements of 6,000 square feet per unit. GriUman eXplained that the applicant had previously been granted a CUP for first tloor residential and a simple subdivision to accommodate two single-family homes. To accomplish a higher density, the applicant would need to consider a PUD to grant tlcxibility to the density allowances. Grittman explained that to allow a PUD, the City would need to consider standards tor driveway length, access drive width, and front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed plan does not meet those requirements. Grittman statcd that due to those factors, as well as the density issue, staff is recommending dcnial. Chairman Frie opened public hearing. Donald Doran, 515 Maple, expressed his concern about the proposed density, referred to the previous approval for single family homes. Doran stated that he speaks on behalf of a number of neighbors in that they had no ohjections with two single family hOllles, if they were in compliance. Patch expressed his concern that the applicant was not availablc to comment. Patch noted that the applicant had been in to discuss the staff report and felt that he had bcen somewhat misled in terms of staff direction on this property. Simola addressed the storm sewer issues for the area. Simola indicated that he had received a calls from a neighbor to the east regarding this project. The City had also receivecl a comment letter from that neighbor, which was avai lable for COlllmissioll' s review. Simola stated that both he and the City Engineer feel the system as proposed will not lake care of the run-off. . l-Iearing no further commcnt, Chairman Frie closed public hearing. 11 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 Hilgart stated that as the applicant is not meeting any of the requirements ofthe PUD standards for such a proposal, it doesn't seem to make sense to table to allow for an application. Dragsten agreed, stating that tour units seem to be more than what the site can take. Suchy and Frie also indicated that they would be inclined to deny the request. Posusta stated that he agrees with Patch and Simola regarding stonl1 water issues. MOTION RY COMMISSIONER HILGART '1'0 RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS TlIAT THE PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DO NOT COMPL Y WITH THE TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSITY, NOR WITH THE CITY'S PUD REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAY DEPTH, PRIVATE STREET WIDTH, GARAGE SEPARATION, OR USABLE REAR YARD SPACE. MUfION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development allowing for moditications to R-2A standards including specification of garage placement for single-familv homes. Applicant: MW .Johnson Construction Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the project had originally included a series of side-loaded garages. Due to the fact that utility improvements were put in locations impairing side loaded garages, the applicants are seeking an amendment to re-Iocate their side-loaded styles to other lots, reducing the total number of side loads. Grittman stated that staff did note a couple of other considerations as part of this request. The ordinance requires that front-loaded garages be no more than 5 feet than front of house, allowing for a narrower street size. The applicant's plans do not meet this requircment. Grittman stated that it is important to clarify that this requirement is still part of the R2~A requirements for this development. Assuming that all ordinance standards not referenced specifically in the PUD apply, Grithl1an stated that staff is recommending approval. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Mark Gergen, representing MW Johnson, stated his appreciation tor Commission's consideration of the request. Gergen indicated that as Sunset Ponds was moving through the planning process, the R-2A district was relativcly new and untested. A lot of details on how the homcs and lots werc to look had not been worked out; they have been working with staff to clarity those details. Gergen commented that the requirement that the garage cannot be more than 5' closer to the street than the home is something they were not aware of. Gergen noted that they have 53 homes in the R-2A, of which they eliminated half of the garage doors facing the front. In terms of the conditions, they intend to meet thell1 and would like an approval. However, Gergen did exprcss his opinion that the 60% front yard in gardcn requirements seemed excessive and prohibitive. Gergen indicated that they arc willing to go through the plans with staff. Frie stated his opinion that that the developer has dcviated from what was originally prescnted to the Commission, and that the developer had shown a total disregard for the conditions approved initially. Frie commented that the developers should have shown more adherence to original plan. hie asked Patch if it was builder or developer who is 12 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . responsible for problem that causes these variations. Grittman elarified that small utilities were simply placed in the wrong locations. In contrast to the larger services, small utility companies, such as cable companies, aren't always looking at the side-load plan; there wasn't necessarily an intent not to follow the plan. Frie asked about the unit designs. (Jrittman responded that R-2A and Sunset Ponds were moving along at the same time, although Sunset Ponds is a complex PUD with design standards that may deviate or be in addition to base zoning standards. Gergen commented that they have small lot single fmnily in many other eommunities and in their experience shared driveways didn't work. Patch referred to the arehitectural standards for the entire development and suggested that both the developer and City had different preconceived notions about what the R-2A distriet was intended to look like. Patch stated that in examining this issue, the door is open to arehitectural upgrades. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Suchy indicated that she appreciated the intent of the R-2A standards. Even so, she is eoncerned that with these designs; the garage appears to be the whole house, even with side-load. Suchy stated she doesn't object to changing the location of side-loaded homes, but did state that she is not happy with garages that far out. Gergen stated that they are open to architectural detailing. . Spartz asked how many homes have been completed. Gergen rcsponded that perhaps 3 in the R-2A; the lnajority have not been started. Dragsten commented on Patch's statement about what Commission thought it was getting. Dragsten stated that the overall size of the home secms very small. Patch indieated that the building departlnent went through each plan submitted so far, and each met the very base requirements. Dragstcn stated that in that case, the Commission may need to reconsider its mininlllll1 district requirements. Patch stated that the concern isn't so much size as design. The design submitted so far are entry level basic in his opinion. I Iilgmt questioned whethcr Grittman feels a superior product is really being achieved with the PUDs the City is approving. Grittman commented that Sunset Ponds was the first R-2A district in the City and it was difficult to measure at the time of approval. Hilgart asked how the developer can they ask for torgiveness tram the ordinance which was in place when approved. HIlgart stated his frustration with PUDs. Patch commcnted that in a high-quality development, 60% front yard in garden is not unreasonable. However, given the current situation moving toward starter homes, he is concerned about the 60% in terms of installation rcsponsibility and maintenancc. Frie asked Gergen whether they could meet thc conditions. Gergen responded that in the case of condition number 1, most of their plans do not mcet this requirement. He is also against the 60% landscapc requirement. . Ililgmt statcd that ifthc developers cannot meet thc superior product required by the PUD, then they should have to stick to the current zoning designation. 13 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 Posusta stated that Council is not happy with the R-2A developments so far, nor with Sunset Ponds in general. This is in response to what they are hearing from the public in Monticello. He indicated that if the plat is wrong, they should change it, the City shouldn't have to acconHnodate the developer. Posusta asked where the extensive landscaping is on the bertning along 1-94. Patch indicated that the landscaping has sureties behind it. Gergen stated that tree planting on the nerm will be occurring in the next week. Grittman reported that a specific landscape plan was approved for that berm, as well as for the entire project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND LISTED BELOW. I. All garage doors must meet a setback of at least 25 feet to permit parking in driveways that will not interfere with sidewalks or the public right of way. The 15 foot setback in the R-2A zone is intended to apply to living space or side-loaded garages only. 2. No garage door area may comprise more than 50% of the width ofthe building, except when located at least 10 feet behind the front line oUhe building. 3. A II structures must have a front fayade of 20% brick or stone (10% if stucco or real wood comprises at least 70%) 4. Garages must be no less than 450 square feet in tloor area. 5. Buildings must be no less than 1,200 square feet in qualified finished floor area. 6. Roof pitch must be no less than 6/12. 7. The applicant work with the developer to determine an appropriate landscape plan as intended in the R-2A district. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Consideration to review a sketch plan for a detached townhome development in a PZM (Performance Zone- Mixed) District. Applicant: Greater MN Housing Fund Hal Klapp, representative for the Greater MN Housing Fund, addressed the Commission. Klapp commented on the discussion regarding R-2A ordinances. Klapp noted that Monticello is in the forefront in creating those standards, as he has been trying to convince other communities that of lnore traditionally designed neighborhoods. Klapp encouraged the Commission to continue their enforcement of the standards, and not to abandon them due to situations where they have not been met. Klapp referred to the sketch plan included in the Commission's packets, stating that it is reflective of a site plan presented to City staff and consultants for review. Klapp noted that the site does have some constraints. Klapp stated that it is GMHF's goal to provide safe, quality housing, while making efficient use of land. Klapp provided a brief presentation illustrating GMHF's projects in other econOlnic growth communities. Klapp presented a typical home design, which was a two-story with front porch and rear-loaded garage with alley. Klapp stated that it is GMHF's intent to get a feel from Planning Commission as to whether it would be willing to accept the project at a formal level. Klapp noted that they have been working with other landowners in the Elm and 7th Street area to develop a comprehensive land-use program. 14 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Frie commented that in considering this type of project, it makes a big difference where it is located and the type of unit. Frie asked how many acres were represented on the site plan. Klapp answered approximately 6, on which they are proposing 27 units of single family detached homes. Klapp stated that the majority of homes would be two-story. Grittman stated that this use would be consistent with the requirements of the PZM district, which would actually allow a higher density than proposed. Grittman did note that the R-2A ordinance is designed to discourage splits. Hilgart referred to the Rollings PUD project presented previously, which was similar. Hilgart stated his recollection was that the unit count was an issue in that approval. Grittman confirmed that, stating that 4 units per acre would be considered acceptable in this area and noted that the Rollings site, or Ruff Auto property, is adjacent to this site. Klapp asked what the City's vision for the site was. Hilgali stated that detached single family shown seemed a good fit. Dragsten asked ifthis development would be association maintained. Klapp stated that it would be. Dragsten asked if the developer would also be the builder. Klapp responded that GMIIF is the developer, and they work with local builders. Oragsten asked ifthe homes are manufactured. Klapp rcplicd that all are stick-built and built to Entcrprise Foundation standards, offering incentivcs for sustainable building. . Klapp indicated that the development is intended to be a mix of work force and market rate housing. Oragsten asked how a determination is made as to which group gets what.housing. Klapp answered that GMHF will work with builders to do half of the housing at an affordable range or about $185,000. GMHF will work with buyers to provide financing to bring the price point down, while still meeting design standards. Klapp stated that the market rate and work force housing is virtually the same home, with different fayade treatments. Dragsten comlnented that the concept seems like a good one. Frie asked if c:; M HF acts as real estate agents. Klapp stated that they work with local realtors. Spartz asked if there is an alley, would it be association maintained. Klapp confirmed. Suchy stated that she likes the project idea and the association. Posusta asked for the approximate square footage of the units. Klapp stated that it ranges from 1200 square feet, with the current average market rate at $185,000. Klapp noted that there are price limits for meeting "affordable" criteria. In the case of the affordable housing, it is a deferred second mortgage that the homeowners arc responsible to pay back. Klapp asked if having affordable housing was a concern for the Commission, noting that residents must meet a celiain wage level to qualify. Frie stated that the attitude of the Council is that Monticello needs unafforable housing. However, the Conltnission realizes that with Wal-Mart and other retail being developed in town, the City must also be able to provide work force housing. . 15 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05 . Frie asked ifthere are covenants in the GMHF developments. Klapp indicated that there would be, as they were requested by market rate buyers. Grittman stated that the next step was for the sketch to be presented to the Council. After their reaction, GMHF could choose to make a formal application. 14. Consideration to review for recommendation a street li~hting policy. John Simola presented the original street lighting policy, which was passed in 1971 and modified in 1974 and 1989. Simola stated that he would like to see the policy modified to adjust the spacing and fixture styles. Simola summarized that under the current policy all intersections, curves in the road, changes in grade and any other safety areas are lit. Beyond that, spacing in residential areas is a straight 700'. Simola noted that currently, developers have to upfront the cost ofthe wire, pole and fixture. Simola reported that he is seeking to update the policy to include a 350' spacing and switch fixture types, which he is researching. Simola stated that staff is seeking Commission's direction on this due to the new development angle. Simola explained that this policy would provide more uniform and better lighting in new residential areas. At a future point, it would go back to Council for approval to retrofit other neighborhoods. Simola asked the COlnmission for a motion to recommend amendment ofthe policy. Posusta asked about light pollution. John said the idea is to light only the street; all fixtures are now cut off lighting with no glare. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND THAT' THE REQUESTED CHANGES ARE MADE TO TIlE STREET LIGHTING POLICY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 15. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. '---t?j~1/J/I~ Recorde . 16