Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-05-2005 . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, .JULY 5th, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: William Spartz Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Sta ff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Spartz. 2. Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, June7th, 2005. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF TUESDAY, ./UNE 7th, 2005,. NOTING TlIA l' THE MINUTE . . HEADING SHOULD READ "REGULAR MEETING" RATHER THAN "SPECIAL MEETING". MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCIIY. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Frie asked that staff look into the signage and lighting ofthe Dairy Queen Grill and Chill cntrance off of Chelsea. O'Neill stated that they will check the plan for access, signage and lighting details. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Continucd Publ ic Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zon ing Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman noted to the Commission that the outdoor storage item had been on the Commission's agenda for a couple of months. In that time, staff has been meeting with an ad hoc committee of industrial business representatives on this item. Grittman explained that there are still items for discussion among the group. . Frie asked ifthe issues have been resolved. Grittman stated that the group is in general agreement, but they would like to see the ordinance again once more before it comes to the Commission. Dragsten asked if the height of storage would be defined. Grittman confirmed that it would be, also indicating that screening requirements had been discussed. Suchy asked if all of the Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . industrial areas affected were represented. Grittman indicated that there were quite a few representatives and that a cross-section of the industrial community had been contacted. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONT'ICEI,I,O ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO THE AUGUST, 2005 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to filing procedures for formal applications of Preliminarv Plat, Conditional Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments and Variances, and to amend the ordinance to define Simple Subdivisions and the application process related to Simple Subdivisions. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the intent ofthe amendment is to restructure the ordinances relative to processing planning applications. Grittman referred to state statutes, indicating that the proposed ordinances are consistent with state law. The proposed changes allow applications to be processed such that they can be both timely and well-reviewed. The amendment also clarifies the application process and requirements for simple subdivisions. Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing. . Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the pub I ic hearing. Dragsten inquired about the reasons for increasing the allowable processing time. Grittman stated that in many cases, the ordinance was not consistent, in some cases allowing 21 days, in others 15 days. Those timelines were not allowing staff proper time for review, and in some cases, would not evcn meet statute for publication of notice. For that purpose, staff recommends extending the application deadline to just under 30 days prior to the public hearing. This also gives staff time to meet with applicants regarding conditions. Grittman noted that in some cases, such as platting, the reviews may take longer than the 30 days. In such case, the City has the option by statute to extend review to the 60 day timeframe. Dragsten statcd that his only concern with extension of review times is compatibility with the building season. Grittman stated staff can work with applicants at a pre-design meeting to discuss timeframes and requirements to eliminate potential delays. Suchy asked ifthe amendment would help eliminate some of the lengthy Exhibit Z conditions. hie agreed with the rationale of the extension processing time in those cases where conditions for approval could be reduced. Grittman stated that while it wouldn't eliminate all of the conditions, it will help to eliminate many. O'Neill also noted that this process will also allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to the conditions. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED, BASED ON A FINDING nIA l' THE AMENDMENTS WILL PROVIDE FOR INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN REVIEW, AND EXPEDITED PROCESSING FOR PRIV ATE APPLICANTS. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 2 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . 7. Continued Public Hcaring.- Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Monte Club Villas, a 14.18 acre residential development consisting of26 detached townhome units. Applicant: L & G, LLC Grittman rcviewed the staff report, stating that the Planning Commission had previously heard discussion on this request and tabled action on the item to allow further discussion between staff and the developer on parkland alternatives. Grittman reviewed the project concept, stating that it consists of26 detached single family units, developed within an association with a maintenance agreement. The top of hill has access from a central drive to 19 of the units. A second private drive would access another 7 units, creating two tiers of homes. Griuman identified some of the surrounding developments and noted that the site is currently guided as commercial and medium density residential. The project as shown here eliminates the commercial and would develop the site as residential. Grittman explained that this concept represents low density residential development. Grittman stated that the units have been represented to staff as a high-end project. The entire site would be regraded, and the developer has proposed an extensive landscape plan. Applicants have provided drafts of both the elevations and landscaping for Commission's review. Grittman indicated that a majority of staff and Commission's discussion related to the view and treeline of the site. One of the solutions staff had suggested was a trade of City land to create a park corridor. The applicants and Parks Commission were not receptive. At this time, the applicant want to proceed with their original concept. . Grittman commented that Fenning will be upgraded to an urban street, which will carry a lot of traffic, given the residential uses and new interchange. Grittman stated that there would be a pathway along Fenning. Grittman stated that in Parks Commission's most recent review, a third option was to preserve an entire corridor along the north side, which would eliminate the private street, and develop only the upper ticr of homes. The City could apply the standard park dedication formula for this scenario. For this density, Grittman stated that the requirements is a little less than I acre,. The balance could be acquired by purchase ofthe lower area not included in the dedication area. That scenario would create a development of 19 units with the public park area about 250 feet wide. Grittman stated that the option would not change the development density, there would be less units in the entire development. The issue is being able to come to an agreement with the applicant on the acquisition. Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing. John Bogart, project engineer; Butch Lindenfelser, developer; and Skip Sorenson, project architect, addressed the Commission. Bogart stated that at this time, the developer is asking the Planning Commission to approve the presented concept. They will work with stafTto see if the Parks Commission's recommendation is feasible. However, they would like a recOllllllendation in order to move forward to Counci I. . Rene McCullouch, 8829 Fenning A venue, asked if the Planning Commission approves what is presented, does that allow the developer can move ahead with what is presented. Frie stated that th is proposal is concept only. The developer will next have to go through preliminary plat and development stage PUD public hearings, which will give the Commission Illore data. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . Frie askcd if there was an opportunity for the developers to voice input at the last Parks Commission meeting. Bogart stated that they had not attended the meeting. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. llilgali stated that he liked the project and inquired about park dedication requirements. Grittman stated that the City has the option of choosing land or cash. The ordinance actually requires land, unless the City decides to accept cash. Hilgart asked if what was [aid out in the concept was acceptable for parkland. Grittman stated that the very noriheast corner would be the more desirable park area. Hilgart asked how much land the north area would be. Bogart stated that it would require about 2 acres, for a total of three acres, including required dedication. Oragsten referred to the fact that the City kecps trying to get uppcr end housing. While Oragsten granted that he doesn't I ike to sec trees cut down, he rccogn ized the trade-off for upper-end housing. If the City can work out a purchase for the parkland with the developer, that would be ideal. Otherwise, Oragsten stated that he is in favor of the full 26 units. Suchy statcd that she is not willing to compromise on one of the City's most identifiable landmarks. Suchy indicated that she is in favor of Parks Commission's proposal. She stated that she would not approve the plan any other way. Suchy asked about the width of the private streets in terms of fire safety. Bogart stated that firctruck access will not be an issue. There will bc parking on one side in certain circumstances where roads are narrow. Posusta statcd that he would like to see elevations of the ticring on paper. . Posusta referred to the public comment letter regarding the retention of a scenic overlook. Posusta stated that the letter confirms to him that most people do not know that there is already a park with overlook near the site. Additionally, preserving trees is contradictory to scenic ovcrlooks. Posusta commented that it is too bad that more people don't know that the park exists. He stated that the Parks Commission would do better by accepting money for dedication and in this casc, adding amenities to the park that already exists. Frie asked about home values expected to be in range of $380,000-$450,000. Bogmi confirmed that price. Frie restated that high-end housing was one of thc goals ofthe Commission. Frie confirmed with Bogart that there were no archeological issues with the hill site. Frie inquired about the landscaping required. Bogart referred to the provided conceptual drawing as their preliminary plan. Grittman statcd that with next appl ication, the City will have the opportunity to review landscaping in detail. Grittlnan stated that the applicants have been the subject of some pressure regarding developing the City's parkland due to the idea of a land trade. Grittman stated for thc record that much of that discussion has been unfair. The developcrs have been very cooperative in terms of developing the housing product and parkland. Frie noted whatever decision is made, the developer will have had thc opporiunity to identify how they have satisfied the park dedication. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 'fUE CONCEPT STAGE PUD FOR 26 UNITS AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER, SUBJECT TO NORMAL PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY TI-IE PARKS COMMISSION. 4 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, who questioncd whether another meeting with staff should be added to confirm the park dedication. O'Neill stated that should be determined in terms of identifying a number of units within the motion. Bogart stated that the developers would like approval on all 26 units. If later on, it is feasible to come back and work with Parks Commission, they will do so. Posusta asked if the proposcd unit count of 19-21 was because they would take a chunk out for park in the northeast. O'Neill confirmed that it was to providc a corridor connection. Grittman illustratcd the proposed corridor area, which could take out all sevcn units. If achicved by dedication, the City would only take the northeast two or three lots. Posusta doesn't agree with that plan as he believes that the applicants should be able to develop their land as they see fit. O'Neill noted that the topography of site in that area may result in significant cost to developer for the 7 lower tier units due to grading and retaining walls. In that circumstance, it was fclt that the parkland dedication may be something that the developer would want to look at. Posusta responded that it should be the developer's decision. Frie stated that Comm ission is rccommending the concept as shown, subject to the normal park dedication, although leaving the door open for an arrangement ofthe parkland. O'Neill asked Frie to define "normal" park dedication, as normally, thc Parks Commission would choosc to blend thc far east with their parkland. Frie stated that the requirement may end up just being dollars. Bogart stated that they will do what is required. . VOTE ON PREVIOUSLY MADE AND SECONDED MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SUCHY IN DISSENT. 8. Public Hemin!;!: - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Usc Permit ft)\" a 840 square foot Detachcd Accessory Structure in an R-l (Sin!;!:le-Family) District. Applicant: Barry Spiers Patch revicwed the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to build an accessory structure in the rear yard of their property. Patch indicated that with a reduction of 40 square feet, thc structure would meet the requirements of ordinance. The reduction would he required to comply with the ordinance rcgulating the ratio between the size ofthe rear yard and the size of the proposed structure, Staff recommends approval with the conditions that the garage is reduced as noted, shrubs are added to soften impact to the areas, and no driveway is constructed to the structure. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Barry Spiers, 3623 Brentwood Drivc, thanked Commission and City staff for their consideration of the request. Spiers questioned the size reduction, stating that he is trying to maximize the square footage ofthe garage, hut still keep green space. . Patch responded that allowing the 40 square feet would require a variance in addition to the conditional use permit. Grittman confirmed that item would require a variance and a separate public hearing. 5 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 Frie asked Spiers if he would be receptive to reduction. Spiers indicated that he would be. . Suchy stated that some R- I home foundations are as large as this garage in base square footage. Suchy noted previous approvals of such requests and expressed concern that the City could potentially have a whole neighborhood of these buildings. Suchy commented that in some cases, these structures are large enough to run small businesses in, which is a concern. Suchy recommended discretion in allowing these request and recommended that property owners research rental of storage units. Patch stated that about 3 years ago, the Commission gavc great consideration to the allowance of accessory structures. At that time, Commission felt it was important to get materials indoors. The Commission also spoke to the conditions that Commissioner Suchy referred to in terms of small businesses. Frie stated that the focus at the time was on keeping all storage inside. Frie stated that at some point in the suture, the Commission may need to address how large the structures are. Suchy agreed that she would like to consider size limits, especially as lots are getting smaller. Frie asked to add that to a future agenda. Patch stated that in discussions with Suchy on the size, he noted that some communities require a minimum depth in garages. This may also be something the Commission may want to consider as part of a future ordinance review. Dragsten referred to the four points outlined in the ordinances. Spiers confirmed he would mect those requirements. Dragsten asked how high the side walls of the proposed garage would be. Spiers answered 9 feet. . 11 i Igart agreed that the square footage should be reduced to 800 square feet, as no variance would likely be granted. Spiers noted that the existing garage is the minimum currently allowed, and he has to touch the front bumper of his truck on the wall to fit it inside. For this reason, he wanted to be able to put larger items inside the proposcd garage. Fric asked if he was agrecable to other conditions. Spiers stated that he intendcd to do rock and shrubs all the way around. Dwayne Sherwood, 10140 Park Place Drive, commented to the Commission that he agrees with the applicant on the size of current attached garages, as he had extended his garage. He stated that he supports this request. Posusta agreed with Commissioner Suchy that it is a large garage for this space. Posusta asked if the gables, overhangs, and pitch would be the same as the house. Spiers confirmed. Spiers asked the Commission to keep garage size concerns in mind, noting Monte Club Hill garages at 22 feet in length. Suchy asked if Spiers had ever considcred adding on to his existing garage. Spiers stated that he could only add on to the third stall and it would encroach on a window in the rear of the home. I Icaring no fUliher comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER I IILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETAOIED ACCESSORY GARAGE, WITH 'fIlE CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS. 6 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . a) The applicant meet each ofthe requirements of the zoning ordinance, ineluding the 10% of rear yard and 1,500 square foot thresholds, and all applicable setbacks. This condition requires a reduction of 40 square feet from the proposed garagc. b) Landscape plantings arc added to the sides and rear to soften the impact of the building on adjoining parcels. c) No driveway should be extended to new accessory building. Frie confirmed that no driveway would be provided to thc garage. Spiers stated that were not be. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a requcst for Variance to allow encroachmcnt of an entrv vestibule into the required 30' tront vard setback in an R-I district. Applicant: David Vukclich . Grittman reviewed the staff rcport, dcscribing the conditions ofthc sitc. Grittman stated that thc cxisting house was bui It close to the fi'ont yard setback. 'f'hc current front entrance arrangement creates difficulty with mobility in the entrancc and that maintenance has also bccome an issue for thc owner. Grittman eXplained that when. looking at variances, the City is required to look at physical hardships. Thc applicant maintains there are hardships as noted and Urittman statcd that staff agree with the applicant. Grittman stated that the addition would still be consistent with the neighborhood and single family use. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Applicant David Vukelich, 5481 Mallard Lane, spoke to the Commission. Vukelich stated that when the front door is opened, it brushes the carpet of the down staircase. 'fhc size of the entryway allows space for only one person; any more than that disrupts the flow ofthc home. Vukclich referred to the cantilever, from which the proposed vestibulc would extend. Frie askcd if he built or purchascd thc home. Vukelich stated that he had purchased the home. Frie agrecd that a hardship was present. Ilearing no further conllnent, Chairman Frie closed the public hcaring. Suchy asked Grithnan what thc purpose of the 30 foot front yard setback is. Grittman stated that while any violation of the ordinance should be taken with due consideration, the idea behind thc ordinance is to preserve some sensc of spaciousness and area in yard. This variance would not infringc unnecessarily on that idea. Suchy asked Vukclich ifhe is planning an entrance slab offthc addition similar to what is existing. Vukelich confirmed it would be similar, with some landscaping. Posusta agreed applicant needs more space. . Patch commented that while some homes may meet the code rcquircmcnts, you can't regulate good design. In this case there seems to have bcen a lack of understanding about the usability of the home. Fric agreed that there may be many honlcs that arc in the same situation. 7 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . Schumann referred to lot sizes that have recently come before the Commission and recommended that the designs for particular lots be considered closely in relationship to the lots themselves. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT OF 3 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A FRONT ENTRY ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CURRENT DESIGN INTERFERES WITH REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO MOBILITY AND MAINTENANCE. M01'ION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive- through pharmaev faei litv in the Central Community District. Applicant: Snvder Drug Stores, Inc. . Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that City is required to review any CUP for drive through proposed in the CCD. In this particular case, the applicant is seeking a change to the current curb cut on site. There are currently two curb cuts onto 4th street. The applicant's changes would be to alter the westerly curb cut to create a new exit lane. The circulation plan shows that tratl'ic enters in the middle and exists either easterly or westerly through the drive through. The exit lane is very close to the intersection. Grittman noted that one of the conditions of a potential approval is that the City Engineer certify that the design is exit only. Grittman stated that the code actually requires that only 2 curb cuts serve a drive through window. The applicant's concern is that a single flow will compromise the loading area for the adjacent tenant. Grittman stated that staff's reconHnendation is approve the CUP f()r drive-through, but keep two curb cuts and have all traffic circulate counterclockwise through the site. This would extend the distance of access to the intersection. With a right turn only design, it would minimize conflict at intersection. As this is a pharmacy, traffic will be fairly light compared to a convenience food establishment drive-through. Grittman encouraged the sidewalk to be included in the design, as the comprehensive plan calls for it in order to increase pedestrian traffic in the downtown area. Grittman noted that the applicant is still working on final signage. Ifthey do intend to change the design from what is shown, they will work with DA T to finalize those details. Staff believe the landscape plan is complimentary to the site. Grittman stated that with those comrllents, staff recOlllmends approval. Chairman Frie opened the publ ic hearing. Kevin Kramer, 2110 1161h Street, asked if the store is on the right side, how would the drive through function with driver being on the left side. Grittman replied that the drive-through would be using pneumatic tube delivery to the drive-side. . Dave Leonard addressed the Commission, representing Snyder Drug Stores. Frie asked if applicant is prepared to provide vehicle stacking numbers. Leonard responded that they had originally come forward with one entrance, however, the neighboring user wanted two. I ,conard stated that with a drive-through pharmacy, customers do not wait for their prescriptions. They drop them off and return later. Frie referred to Wells Fargo stacking issue on 41h Street, stating his concern for safety and traffic in the area. Leonard indicated 8 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 that this plan would allow stacking room for at least six or seven cars, which is unlikely. . Hilgart stated that he would like to see the plan with only two curb cuts. Dragsten and Suchy agreed with the two curb cut plan. Frie askcd Leonard if he was fami I iar with the cond itions. Leonard confirmed that they had been reviewed with staff. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closcd thc public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAl, OF THE CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE FACILITY WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH TIlE REQUIREMENTS AND INTENT OF THE CCD DISTRICT, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED BELOW a. Work with City Engineer to ensure design of exit drive is right-turn only. b. Reduce curb cut locations to a total of two, or c. Work with Design Advisory Team to ensure consistency of signage with CCD requirements. d. Verify consistency of lighting fixtures with zoning ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. . II. Public Hearing - Considcration of a request for a Variance and Amcndment to Conditional Use Permit to allow additional pvlon and wall signage at an automobiles sales facility in a B-3 (lIighwav Business) District. Applicant: Monticello Motors/Dennv Hecker Dodge Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking approval for additional wall and pylon signage at the Monticello Dodge/KIA car dealership. The proposed pylon signage for the Kia dealership, at 27 feet high, would be in addition to 3 other free standing signs on the site, two of which are along the 1-94 frontage, and the third along Chelsea Road. Grittman noted that the zoning ordinance only provides for I pylon sign per site. Grittman stated that in the rast, the City has made an allowance for automobile dealerships, at one sign per frontage. When looking at variances, the Planning Commission is required to find a physical hardship condition on site. With signage, Grittman explained that this is a difficult threshold to Ineet. The current amount of exposure and wall signage on site already seems to be reasonable in this circumstance. GriUman noted that Planning Commission had approved an interim use ofthe D & D Auto site based on a future KIA dealership at that location. That site would be eligible for a pylon sign. However, the applicant is using that site for used car sales. . GriUman stated that based on the finding that there is no physical hardship to warrant a variance, staff are recomll1ending denial of pylon. The pylon would need both the variance and amendment of Conditional Use Penn it as it changes the original site plan. The variance for wall signage would be recommended for approval, as it is consistent with what has been allowed for other dealerships. Dragsten asked if there was a KIA sign currently on the building. Grittman stated that they would be replacing the existing sign with a manufactured sign. Dragsten asked if this was a 9 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . violation in itself and should have had a variance to begin with. Grittman stated that he was unsure of that. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Bill Rambo, representing Monticello Motors, indicated to the Commission that the noted Suzuki pylon is actually on the D & D property and had previously received a variance. In regard to the wall sign requested for the north side, Rambo stated that the hardship is that they need to sell morc KIAs. Frie asked staff to confirm that the Suzuki sign is on the D & D site. Grittman stated that regardless if the Suzuki sign is already on the D & D property, the Dodge site still has exceeds the allowed amount of pylon signage and needs a variance. Rambo indicated that they are in the process of buying 33 feet of adjacent property, and if purchased, could the sign bc placed on that location. Frie asked if a variance could specify location. Grittman stated that they could recommend a location in granting the variance. O'Neill asked Rambo ifthe Dodge and KIA signs could be located on one pylon. Rambo stated that the manufacturers will not allow that. Duane Sherwood, 10140 Park Place Drive, addrcssed the Commission. Sherwood stated that hc is in objection to the variance and amendment. Sherwood commented on the existing light and noise pollution from the car dealerships to Park Place Drive. lie recommended that the City do better in separating and regulating uses. . Frie noted that there are light and sound ordinances. Fric asked if Shcrwood had discussed this previously with the City. Sherwood said that he had not. O'Neill clarified that thc light on the dealership site technically does mect the code. However, the reflection off of the cars isn't accounted for in photometrics. Frie asked about the dealership speaker systems. Shcrwood stated that they could hear both Dodge and West Metro. Rambo stated that they own the property that West Metro is on. Rambo commented that when the store closes, therc is no reason for the sound system to bc on. Rambo stated that lighting has been chccked on numcrous occasions. Patch stated that when the lighting plan was submitted, it did measure I foot candle at center line of street light, which meets the ordinance. That doesn't account for bounced light, which is difficult to measure. Patch stated that maybe the City should look at regulating light pollution, as pcrhaps there isn't enough control on those items. Patch statcd that he had spoken with the auto dealcrship managcr about thc speakers, which wcre subsequently turned down. Rambo stated that all dealers should have volumc controls on their speakers. O'Neill noted that thcrc were glarc issues into thc Groveland neighborhood that Denny I Iccker did take care of on the Ford Dealership site. . Dan Lemm, 113 Cameron Avenue, recommended that staff encourage higher bui Id ings in the buffcr area to shicld light and noise 10 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Hilgart asked if staff was aware of the previous variance to put up the Suzuki, sign. Grittman stated that he was unaware that they had made a request for such a variance. Regardless, the site is entitled to two signs, one on each right of way, which they already have. Rambo agreed, stating that they have two on the Dodge property, and two on D & D site, with one being a pylon. Hilgat1 asked if the applicant could get rid of the monument and put up the requested pylon instead. Patch confirmed that they could, answering that the ordinance doesn't differentiate between the two types of signage; they are simply allowed two. O'Neill stated that the Commission has the authority to act on the variance. Grittman confirmed, stating that the pylon's CUP will go to Council, but the Planning Commission acts on the Variance. The applicant can appeal to Council. Frie stated that they will take action on both. Hilgart asked what the rationale for the hardship allowing more wall signage but not more pylon would be. Grittman stated that wall signage allowed the applicant the visibility they requested while still within the total allowable range for signage square footage. Posusta pointed out that ifthey had 5 different lots, they would be allowed a sign on each. . Hilgart referred to the fact that if the dealer had more company car makes, they would request more signs. Their corporate requirements are not really Commission's problem. Dragsten is concerned about setting a precedent allowing so much signage on a site. Frie clarified that the proposed wall sign would replace existing signage and add one wall sign. Rambo confirmed. Suchy stated the additional wall signage seemed acceptable. She stated that she is concerned about additional pylon signage. Rambo stated that the site had 360 feet of frontage. Frie asked if frontage was taken into consideration in other requests. Patch stated it had been in some cases, but only as a pat1 of a PUD. Frie asked if they would be in compliance in terms of the size of the pylon. Rambo confinned. Posusta stated that he has been trying to get rid of the Monticello Liquor sign because it doesn't fit the property. Similar situations should be treated the same way. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNAGE FOR 'ITIE KIA DEALERSHIP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT . 1. The wall signage is necessary to put the property to reasonable use, including a finding that additional identification of the Kia dealership is appropriate to avoid confusion. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 11 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING TlIA T: I. No hardship is present, and that the applicant can make reasonable use of the property under the current regulations without the additional pylon sign. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED WITlI CHAIRMAN FRIE DISSENTING. Frie noted that the applicant could appeal to Council. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Taco John's Restaurant. a convenience food establishment in a B-4 district. Applicant: JAT Restaurants Grittman reported that the applicants and staff had requested tabling the item as flllther site plan review was needed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMETN FOR TACO JOHN'S RESTAURANT, A CONVENIENCE FOOD ES"rABLISHMENT IN A B-4 DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. . 13. Continued Public Hearing ~ Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Jefferson at Monticello development, an approximately 875 acre development consistin!l: of approximately 2700 residential units over 515 acres, 328 acres of community property/open space and 32 acres of commercial development. Applicant: Heritage Development Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting location site along Interstate 1-94 in the area of Silver Springs Golf Course. Grittman stated that the proposed project consists of about 890 acres with a mix of housing styles; retail/commercial development and business; and renovation of the golf course. Action on the item had been continued from the previous Planning Commission meeting. Since that time, the applicants have made adjustments to their concept plan. Grittll1an reported that the concept plan included the Commissioner's packets reflects the updated plan. Cirittman highlighted the changes made to the plan. The previous version proposed 2700 total residential units. The current plan illustrates a total of2300 units with 400 of those being senior housing. The applicant has suggested that the senior housing be excluded from density calculations in order to focus discussion on attached and detached residential unit ratio specifically. As such, this plan shows 802 detached single-family units on various lot widths, and 1061 attached units. GriUman calculated that the attached units represent 46% of units. . A second issue cited at the previous meeting was related to the proposed phasing ofthe project. The phasing concentrated on the 111ulti-family units being constructed in the tirst phases. With the revised plan, Grittman commented that a better mix of single and multi family units has been achieved in this plan. Grittman stated that the applicants have also expanded the first phase to include the business park area, which was made larger to be more consistent with the original comprehensive land use plan. 12 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . In the southwest corner, Grittman repolied that the revised plan illustrates a significant increase in detached units in this area. In terms of the attached units themselves, Grittman provided a staff overlay ofthe revised plan showing that more than 25% of units directly fronting the golf course, a marked ill1provement over the previous plan. Grittman noted that it was critical to obtain more units with that exposure, as those units will be of higher value units due to the golf course. Grittman reported that the developer has also provided some ofthe smaller unit clusters as requested. Also, beyond the 25% of units directly fronting the course, some are also across the street from the course or adjacent to wetlands. A third concern was the previous plan's potential confliet with neighboring uses. Grittman eXplained that in that regard, the applieants have added buffering around existing residential areas. Additionally, Grittman stated that housing ha been removed from freeway exposure, replaced in some areas by publie park. Grittman indicated that staff also had concerns over the proposed east to west phasing. The original design allowed for more town homes in first phases. The applicants have proposed that rather than ehange the phasing due to restriction of utilities, they would ehange the unit mix within the phasing as noted. Grittman stated that appears to be the case with this concept. . Griuman eXplained that other detailed changes had been made. Due to the scope and scale of the project, he noted that all review is general at the concept stage, and intended to focus on the larger issues. Assuming the project proceeds, Grittman assured the Commission that there would be a significant amount of review. At this time, the review is focused on general nUlnbers and land use. Griuman identified the series of issues for consideration by Commission, which were outl ined in the previous staff report. Grittman stated that from staff" s perspective, a number of those have been addressed, at least in part. . 1. Financing for Infrastructure. This is still a relevant question. Grittman stated that staff believe that this project needs to be viable and pay for service extension as well as generate tax revenue for on-going maintenance. 2. Market Feasibility. Grittman commented that the developer's have provided a preliminary market report, which provides an overview of market conditions and absorption for this type of product. It will require flllther detail and study at the next stage. 3. Amenity Phasin!l:. Silnilar developments have amenities such as the course being built first. Grittman stated that th is is sti II a concern for staff, as the appl icant is sti II seeking to build the course in phases, with the completion ofthe total course in 2010-2011. Grittman reported that the developer's contention is that the course will still be operable as development proceeds and will be used to support development. 4. Land Use. Grittman stated that the density number has been reduced. While statfhasn't had an opportunity to completely analyze new numbers, generally, the detached numbers are up and the attached are down. 5. Amenity EXl)osure.. Grittman commented that the high number of units without exposure to amenities had been addressed with the revisions to the project as noted. Grittman stated that while the ratio of single family has gone up, there arc still a signi ficant number of attached units with exposure. 6. Commercial/Industrial Land Use. This was addressed through the expansion of the business park, using both sides of Chelsea Road. Grittnlan stated that staff believe that 13 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . the revision is more consistent with comp plan. Grittman explained that it accomplished both a reduction in the number of attached units and resulted in increased business/industrialland. 7. Density. In this area, Grittman stated that the developer's revision showed an elimination of nearly 400 units. Grittman also highlighted the distinctions between land uses, again noting the reduetion in the number of attached housing without exposure to amenities and the increase in single famly unites. Grittman referred to the fact that the single-family units occur on a variety of lot widths. Therefore, they will still need to rely on the golf course to boost values. For the upcoming submittal, Grittman reported that the developer will need to generate proposals for thc single family detached neighborhoods. Finally, Grittman stated that one of the discussions at the last Commission meeting was in regard to how the plan complies with the existing land use plan. Grittman eonfirmed that it clearly it does not. Grittman reported that the applicant wasn't intending it to, and understood that the plan would require a eomp plan amendment. Grittman referred to the land use plan's requirement of 50% open space and stated that Planning Commission will need to discuss if the City is going to change the plan for open space, and does it rellect the City's goal. Also, does this plan show an increasing variety of housing, partieularly high value housing as desired by the City? Grittman stated that if Commission feels this plan meets these, the Commission should be free to change land use. . Grittman reported that staff is recommending approval of the concept stage PUD, with the notations as stated. However, the recommendation is made with a narrowly drawn approval that is based generally from a unit and land use standpoint. Grittman indicated that staff believes it is closer to where the City has wanted to be when looking at mixed-use projects. It also balances Council's goals for the ability to economically pursue a new interchange in this area and funds to acquire the YMCA property. Posusta stated that he was at the last meeting with the developers. He stated that he was under the impression that they were at 2000 units. Grittman stated that their detached and townhouse unit count is at approximately 1880, due to request to exclude the 400 senior units. Posusta noted the significant drop. Grittman stated that with the senior units excluded, it does change the numbers. Chairman Frie opened the publ ic hearing. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, project planners; and Mike Moriarty, representing I Ieritage Developlnent, project applicant, provided a brief presentation on the revised plan. Uban stated that the developers had worked hard to create a good project that could meet their goals and requirelnents and to adjust the plan to meet the City's objectivcs, as well. Uban stated that it is critical that the project is viewed as a whole, with interconnected pieces. Uban stated that in proposing this development, Heritage is trying to set a new standard for Monticello. . Uban stated that there are many benefits of a large, master-planned community. He recognized that it brings challenges, and raises lots of issues. At the sanle tinle, Uban indicatcd that there are lnany opportunities. lie cited specifically the continuity of development, the coordination of utilities, long-term value and consistent quality. Uban noted that the developer has to do well in the early part in order to do well later. Uban noted 14 Planning Commission Minutes 07105/0S that quality is important to that success. . Uban explained that the project will create its own identity as a golf course development. He stated that everyone would have interaction with the golf course. Uban indicated that the master plan is based around the golf course. They have also master-planned the open space, through a unifiecl park and trail plan. lIe noted that a single developer is responsible for the big picture of the green spaces. A homeowner's association would maintain all open spaces. Uban referred to the developer's concept of life-cycle housing, which attempts to bring together all mocles of housing into one community. Uban asked the Commission to cons icier changing demographics, stating that developers arc currently building for baby boomers. Uban referenced the fact tbat boomers are now looking at retirement and moving into different kinds of housing. He reported that they want many different choices. 'rhat is the reason for the variety shown in this plan. Uban stated that the plan also accommodates first- time home buyers, family formation housing, move-up golf course housing and empty-nester housing. It also incorporates neighborhood commercial areas. Uban referred to the plan changes as notecl by Grittman. He stated that they have 1110ved in the direetion of upper-end housing and reducing attached units. Uban stated that out of 2272 units, 1/3 ofthe multi-family units are upper-scale townhomes on the golf course. In regards to phasing, Uban said they have kept the actual phasing areas the same, but as with the I st phase, the have changed the mix of units to meet the City's expectations. . In response to the concerns about golf course phasing, Uban eommentecl that the development site isn't a field that they can simply builcl a course on. 'rhere is an existing course. Uban stated that they believed it should be a place that people can continue to play golf. Their plan is to acljust and pull it apart to build newly enhancecl holes while maintaining play. Uban reported that the first phase would include 3 new holes, the 2'''' would include 9 holes. On phase 3, they would concentrate on the back 21. Uban noted that the course woulcl interconnect with trails to the rest of the development. There are also small, private recreational areas within each phase. Uban stated that there arc fifteen hundred units of what the developer terms "move-up housing". He statecl that they have bcgun charting values, with the top being the Argus product developecl specifically for this project. Uban illustrated the differing styles of proposed town homes, indicating that they would be between 1400-1900 square feet. Uban noted that variation in rootlines, which was something they realized thc Commission was looking for. On smaller lots, Uban stated that the design was reminiscent of traditional neighborhoods with two story homes on smaller lots. Tbe rest of the single family is a variety, with builders that have not yet been selected. Uban assurecl that they w(lldcl be by the time the process is completed with the City. Uban stated that Heritage is trying to work with the City in terms of meeting City goals and balancing their own. Uban eonul1ented that while it may be difficult to comprehend at this point, they are trying to put it in a complete package. Uban askecl for partnership in obtaining that goal. . Jim Moore, 2961 116tl1 Streets NE, addressed the Commission. Moore indicated that he lives in the adjacent township subdivision of Devron Greens. Moore stated that he has come to the conclusion that this project will happen. He explained that he had bought a house next to a golf course, and while he realized that it wasn't guaranteed, he is just asking fix something 15 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 nice next door. Moorc stated that he knows that his property valucs will decrcase. . Moore referenced thc potcntial interchange in this area, noting its proximity to thc nuclear power plant. Moore indicated that he had spoken to local and state legislators, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others. Frie askcd ifthose he had spoken to are concerned about thc intcrchangc or the location. Moore indicated that many had concerns about interchange's location, citing specifically that a legislator's office had contacted the Department of Homeland Sccurity about thc issue. Posusta stated that thc alternative location puts the interchange further to the east, putting it even closer to Moore's homc. Moore asked why it couldn't be located closer to County 39. Posusta referred to MN/DoT and the DNR's desire to have it located at the proposcd position. Moorc indicated that he had talked with Terry Humbert at MN/DoT. Humbert had stated that no one has ever talked to them about an intcrchange at this location. Posusta stated he believed that to bc incorrect. Frie askcd if Moore has met with the developers since thc last Commission meeting and asked what changes have becn made in relationship to his property. Moore stated that they pushed the road back, although he will still have a four-lane road behind him. . Mike Cyr, 2770 County Road 39, spoke to Commission on his concerns. He indicated that hc is adjacent to thc proposed project on the east side. Cyr confirmed with Grittman that thc plan hc had obtained earlier was the most rcccnt comp plan for long range land use plan. Cyr rcfcrrcd to the plan, which guides the arca for opcn space, low density residential, and industrial uses. Cyr statcd that he is wondering why project is moving forward when it doesn't address what thc City has stated it wants. Cyr admits that he has concerns about the neighborhood scrvices, which he believes is a euphemism for convenience store. Cyr commcnted that the people going to the development will be coming from east or south and passing by a nUlllber of convcnicncc stores on their way home. He does not believe this area need morc. Cyr noted that this project area is a blank slate at this point. There is nothing to prevent it from being cxactly what the City would like it to be. Cyr stated that from everything he has heard so far from the Commission and Council, they are looking for single-family, movc-up homes. Cyr cited Posusta's comments on this development's single-family to town home ratio being "upsidc down". Posusta had cited the developer's then ratio of 4 townhomes for evcry single-family home. Cyr noted that the camp plan goal is actually 3 single-family for every I townhomc. Cyr qucstioned why the development plan doesn't reflect 1600 single- family homes. He again expressed concern that his home is next to the only retail in thc whole development. Cyr askcd why the City is putting retail in a residential area. He stated that he docs not bclicve it belongs there. Cyr ended by stating that he thinks that Comlllission and Council should just say "no" to this dcvclopmcnt. Fric askcd Grittman to respond to Cyr's low density concern. Girttman replied that the area to the east ofthc golf course is guided for low density on the comp plan. The blue area on the guide map is industrial. He noted that these are basically the two uses identified in that area. Grittman acknowledged that this plan requests a change fronl that. . Mel Enger, 9234 Woodlark Way, Maple Grove, addressed the Commission. Enger statcd that he owns 200 acrcs just west of the development, bordering the property. Enger stated that he wanted to go on record supporting this project. Engcr had two qucstions. lIc askcd if this developnlent would provide road access into their property, and noted that as over half of his 16 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . property is in the annexation area, would the utility service eapacity be able to support his property. Grittman stated that the City Engineer would need to respond to those questions. It is his understanding that utilities are being designed to service at the very minimum the annexation area and possibly to the township border. Daniel Damiani, 11711 Cameron A venue stated that he is concerned about the lot sizes for single-family homes. He stated that he works in the community, and the homes he has been working on have been on 80 foot lots, which tend to be small for upscale homes. Damiani wanted to go on reeord that lots sizes will need to be looked at. Frie asked Damiani what he believed should be the bottom end. Damiani stated that 80 should be minimum. Frie asked Grittman for clarification. Grittman stated that the 50 foot lots shown are intended to create more of a traditional single family home neighborhood. Frie asked the COll1missioners if, in their point of view, the developers have made proactive changes. . Suehy stated that she thinks they are heading in the right direction. She commented that she is starting to understand the whole concept and believes that they are trying to create a good product. Suchy stated that she is still concerned about the ratio of single-family to town homes and the overall projeet density. Suchy noted that the more that she is learning about lifecyle housing, the more it does seem to be the trend in the market. Suchy stated that at the next stage, the Commission will need to look harder at the project. For example, perhaps the lot sizes need to be larger. Suchy noted that the town homes the developers are proposing aren't similar to what is currently in Monticello. Dragsten stated that he had attended the last meeting with the developers. Oragsten commented that he sees that the single to multi-family ratios are dropping. However, he stated that a fair amount of questions remain. Oragsten indicated that they would need to be addressed as the projeet moves forward. Suchy asked what percentage of homes the developer categorizes as single-family high-end. Uban statod that he thought it was about I of every 3, with the majority of those on the golf course or in the northern area, near the wetland. Dragsten questioned the detached single-family numbers. Dragsten asked for the number breakdown based on lot size. Uban replied that their were 117 at 50', 332 at 60', and 353 at 80' or greater. Uban noted that they do have lots up to 120 feet in width. Oragsten asked how they would ensure that this development attracts the higher-end in the first phases. Uban stated that the first phase will now have more upper-end homes. The current plan shows 113 single-family homes on a mix of60' and 80' lots. . Dragsten stated that he is also still concerned about phasing in the amenities. He also stated that styles needs to be better defined. Oragsten questioned why the retail shown in southeast corner is among single-t~ll11ily homes. With so much business focused in the north, is it needed in the southeast? Dragsten asked specifically ifthere had been any changes around Devron Greens. Moriarty stated that they have realigned the road, and added an additional 50' buffer. These adjustnlents create a buffer from home to home of over 300'. Moriarty stated that they had also increascd lot sizes on the south boundary. Dragsten askcd about stylc of home proposed for that area. Moriarty stated that it will be high-end homes in that location. 17 Planning Commission Minutes 07105105 . Hilgart asked the developers and staff to confirm the 3 units per acre calculation. Hilgart stated that he doesn't think the mix ofsingle-f'.:'1mily and detached shown is necessarily a bad thing. If they did the whole development with single-family and tore up the multi-family, it doesn't neeessarily guarantee a nice product. Hilgart stated that ifthe Commission held to 3 units per acre, the development would be at 1900 units. Hilgart stated that he believes they should comply with that strict standard and make the PUD work the way it's supposed to work. The proposed upper-end areas should also be responsible to the R-1 A standards. Hilgart asked about the road connections. Moriarty stated Jefferson Parkway would be a 4- lane road, as it was determined to be the best way to carry tratl'ic. Moriarty stated that it would be a parkway boulevard, with a tree line down the center, with 45'-50' green space median. O'Neill stated that it will have a slower design speed, and two below-grade crossings for pedestrians. He explained that the planned overall right of way is 120' at intersections, with 100' at straight locations. Frie asked who would maintain the median. Uban stated that it would be maintained by the development's homeowner's association. Frie stated that he still has reservations about the City's ability to finance this development. Frie stated that while he understands this is a concept only, the availability to finance it is a major concern that the City can't just keep talked about. He inquired at what point will the financial issues be resolved. O'Neill stated that presuming this is a supported plan, the numbers will be calculated. However, at least in preliminary form, unit numbers need to be established, so that the city and developers can then work backward on calculations. . Frie stated that in tenns of the smaller issues noted, they are actually issues of some concern. Frie asked when they will be addressed. Moriarty stated that they have done a lot of preliminary architecture, roadway designs, etc. They will continue working on them as the process Inove forward. Grittman eXplained that all details will be provided with preliminary plat and development stage PUD. Once the City and developers have settled on a general layout, the City can start discussing about what it likes and doesn't like about minute details. Frie asked ifthe City's Tuesday meetings with the developer would continue. Both the developer and City staff confirmed that they would. Frie asked how the developer had decided on elements to be included in each phase. Moriarty stated that the utilities guided the first phasing, as they were available in southeast. In keeping with the land use planning, the phases were than worked out based on a financial revenue stream. Moriarty stated that by bringing businesses in, they felt that the families would follow. Moriarty stated that they have a golf course architect on staff who is consulting on the phasing and renovation of the course. Frie stated that he felt the upscale housing should have been in first phases. He inquired if it wasn't because of the financing and need for high density. Moriarty stated that it was not necessarily so. T'hey felt that needed the business park. Moriarty stated that although they view the single family as the bread and butter of the project, they have to have a mix of units as laid out by market research. Frie cited that it would take 8 years to get majority of the upscale housing in. In that case, he felt that the City needed to be prudent in financing the entire development. . Frie stated that he and Hilgart are also concerned about 50' single-family lots. He asked if the developer has a rationale for those lots. Moriarty stated that they have looked at nice detached townhomcs fix those small lots. Morialiy confirmed that they would be association 18 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . maintained. Moriarty reportcd that 50' lots bring in a new market segment based on housing style. Uban stated he could provide Commission with a map of some of those areas ofthe Inetro, perhaps even a tour. Frie recommended taking the tour. Frie asked about finished yardage of the course. Moriarty stated that it would 6800 yards. Posusta stated the density calculation is actually 2.8 units per acre. Posusta commented on land values in response to Mr. Moore's concerns. Posusta stated that initially, a decrease in land value may occur. However, Posusta stated his opinion that ifthe property owners wait, their land values will go up. Todd Hoefling, 2183 1161h Street NE, addressed the Commission, stating that their recorded covenants will not allow them to break up their lots. Posusta stated that the township creates those covenants and that they can be removed. O'Neill noted that the covenants are a private contract between property owners. Grittman stated that at this point, the City has to assume property owners don't want to split the land. In that case, the developer is held to the buffer yard standard. The developer needs to add landscaping and buffering in those spaces. Grittman noted that while it is understood those property owners don't have the same condition as previous, they are still not living next door to an urban development. . Posusta noted that at sonle point, those properties would need City services. Posusta stated that it is important for people to realize that the developers pay for those things, not cities. Posusta referred to the large buffer yard and that the developer had increased the size of the lots behind the existing development to almost 1/4 acre each. Posusta commented that he also has a problem with 50' lots. Frie would like the previously referenced tour to be put together. Frie also asked the developers to look again at phasing. Moriarty stated that they would work with staff on that in terms offinancial viability and keeping their contract with landwoners. I Iearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE REVISED JEFFERSON PROJECT', BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE PLAN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE CITY, AND TI-IA T TI IE PLANS FOR UNIT MIX, UNIT STYLE, AND PHASING ARE MORE CLOSELY IN KEEPING WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES FOR THIS AREA. THIS MOTION IS INTENDED TO RE LIMITED TO THE GENERAL COMPONENTS OF THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND THAT DETAILED DESIGN ISSUES, INCLUDING SITE PLANNING, STREET LAYOUT, ARCHITECTURE, AND OTHER DETAILS WILL REQUIRE MORE EXTENSIVE REVIEW AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD CONSIDERATION. ALSO SUI3JECT TO COMMENTS INCORPORATED AND ADDRESSED AT THE PLANNING TII COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5 ,2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IIILGART. . MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH CHAIRMAN FRIE DISSENTING. FRIE STATED THAT HIS DISSENT WAS RASED ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 19 Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05 . I. The propos cd tour would help to determine viability of small lots 2. There might be fllliher adjustments needed in phasing. 3. The plan should reflect the eomprchensive plan's policy of a 3 single-family to 1 townhome ratio. 14. Consideration to call for a public hearing to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to ioint access and ioint drives and for parking lot setbacks. Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that staff was requesting that the Commission consider calling for a hearing to establish amendments on specific items which have caused problems in site design in the past. Specifically, Grittman cited the interaction between parking lots, which currently require PUDs. Staff believes this can be handled administratively. Secondly, Grittman stated that staff have discussed the merits of changing park i ng lots to lllove them off of uti I ity easements. Frie stated that he thought those items justified further discussion. Confirmed for August. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE MONTlCELJ,O ZONING ORDIANCE RELATING TO JOINT ACCESS AND JOINT DRIVES, ANDFOR PARKING LOT SETBACKS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . 15. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IHLGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . 20