Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-06-2005 . . . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6th, 2005 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Diek Frie, Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: Lloyd Hilgart, Council Liaison Present: G ten Posusta Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. Chairman Fric callcd the lneeting to order at 8:00 PM and dcclared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart. hie explained that while Deputy City Administrator O'Neill was not present, he would be available for the meeting ifneeded. 2. Approval onhe minutes ofthe regular Planning Commission lneeting of Tuesday, November 1st, 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINLrrES OF TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 1st, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4~0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agcnda. NONE. 4. Citizen COlnments. NONE. 5. Introduction of new city staff. Patch introduced new City Engineer Bruce Westby and new City Building Inspector OJ 1 Iennessey. Chairman Frie asked the secrctary to provide contact information of both the City Engineer and Building Inspector to thc Commissioners, should questions arise. 6. Public I Iearing.. Consideration of a request for Variance from the Monticello Zoning ordinance to allow an 11,760 Sllll3re foot detached accessory structure in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. Grittman revicwed the staff report, indicating that the appl icants are proposing to construct a second accessory building. In the 1-2 zoning district, and others like it, accessory building space is limited to 30% ofthe principal building. Grithnan explained that the applicant's Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . proposal would exceed that by about 2500 square feet. Grittman reported that the applicant is proceeding with a building permit to moye forward with building that complies with the ordinance at this time. If the variance is denied, they will proceed with that building. Grittman referred to the hardship requirements for a variance, listed within the ordinance. In this case, the site is used legally as an industrial property, and the applicant can expand the building and build an accessory structure up to 30% of the principal building without the variance. Grittlllan stated that in staff's opinion, there is no hardship, and therefore no justification for the variance. Dragsten asked ifthe other accessory building shown on the site would rcmain. Grittman confirmed. Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing. Mike Sand, representing Wallboard Inc., at 207 Dundas Road, addressed the Commission. Sand explained that the company had applied for the varianee above 30%, as they wanted a larger building that would get materials out ofthe elements. They were also thinking about doing an additional shed. Sand stated that thc company had atso considered adding on to the east side of the principal building, which would eliminate the need for the varianee. Sand explained that in terms of a hardship, their company is limited in allocation as to what they ean take in supply at one time. Sand stated that they need to take everything they can get at one time, which is the reason for seeking more space. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Frie asked if Sand was in attendance at any of the open and outdoor storage meetings. Sand stated hc had been at the last meeting. Dragsten asked when Wallboard was planning on starting construction on the building. Sand stated that they have applied for footings and foundation for the accessory structure. Sand stated that construction on the principal building expansion would hopefully begin in spring, with completion in 2006. Spartz asked if, with the additional principal building expansion, they would still be exceeding the 30%. Sand stated they would be within the 30% range with that expansion. Suchy asked what type of materials would be uscd on thc accessory structure. Sand statcd it would be steel colllnms with steel siding. He stated that the front facc would be open. Frie referred to the justifications for yariances as required by ordinance. Frie noted that thc staff report suggests that the applicant has opportunity to expand current building or combine an expansion ofthe principal building with the accessory. Grittman stated that either would increase the utility of the property. Dragsten noted the expansion of the principal building would eliminate need for the variance. Frie inquired whether the outcomc on thc principal building would be based on this eyening's decision. Sand stated they are planning on proceeding with the accessory buitding no matter what, but was not sure about the primary expansion. . Posllsta stated that personally, becausc of thc attractiveness of the current building, most peopte don't even notice the buildings behind. Posusta stated that he also believes that the Commission would address the open and outdoor storage issue by allowing him to put up this 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 building. If the building is similar to the existing and helps promote their business and not drive them somewhere else, Posusta stated that he doesn't know why the Commission wouldn't allow that, other than that we are not following the letter of City law. Frie noted that the applicant's two other options accomplish the same thing, and stated that the Commission still needs to abide by the ordinance in their recommendation. Frie explained that the Commission can't base their decision on looks or economics. Posusta stated that by the samc token, the Commission is looking again at a potential outdoor storage issue. Grittman responded that staff's position is that the variance ordinance has required findings that come out of our ordinance and also state statutes. While staff and Cot11111ission may think what the applicant is proposing is a good idea, they have to follow the ordinance. Grittman stated that ifthey were coming in with the expansion first, the variance request would bc unnecessary. The requcst is a timing issue. Sand statcd that open and outdoor storage is a big issue for them. Hc notcd that all of their storage would no longer be outdoors, it would now be inside. Sand indicated that his realtor had told him there were no rcstrictions for accessory structurcs. If we had learned this restriction earlier, thcy wouldn't be here. Patch stated that if the ordinance doesn't provide sufficicnt arca via the 30%, it could certainly be amended. Although staff and the Commission are somewhat sympathetic, the request may require an ordinancc change rather than variance. Frie asked if perhaps the Commission should continue any action and allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to comc up with an alternative. Sand stated that hc was reeeptive to hat option. Frie noted that a recommendation would need to be made at the January meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WALLBOARD VARIANCE REQUEST, TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANI' THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE OPTIONS OTHER THAN TilE TWO PRESENTED. MUrJON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Spartz asked what Sand would be looking for in January. Sand stated that thcy would be looking to bring the principal building expansion plan forward so that Commission kncw there was something firm. Patch stated that if they were to pull the permit for both, it would be good for a year. Patch suggested that by pulling the pennit for both, Wallboard could move on thc proposed accessory structurc without the variance. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning from PZM (Performancc Zone Mixed) to B-3 (lIighwav Business) and considcration of a request for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow a Tire Sales and Service as a Conditional Use within a PZM district. Applicant: Kean of Monticello Grittrnan explained that in conversations with the applicants prior to the meeting, thcy had requested that the only item for consideration be the rczoning. Frie restated for the record that the alternative for action is strictly the rezoning. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Grittman stated that the applicants are seeking to accommodate a tire service store as part ofa retail strip center. They are requesting a rezoning to B-3 in order to accomplish this use. Grittman noted that as explained previously, the PZM district provides a land use transition between high and low intensity land uses. Staff had not recommended approval based on the use statements of the two districts. Grittman indicated that the PZM ordinance is set up to require some kind of slow transition between residential and commercial area. He stated that it is staffs opinion that condition is still present at this location. Grittman said that a PZM designation is well suited to this site, and that even a potential amendment to allow the tire sale and service use would create the same issues. Grittman reported that staff continues with its original recommendation, which is to deny the request. Frie referred to the other agenda item, also requesting a rezone in the same area. Frie asked if the rezones would be considered spot-zoning. Grittman stated that staff had looked at rezoning this entire area, in order to avoid spot-zoning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Maxine Lilja addressed the Commission as a resident of the Riverview Drive townhomes, directly behind the property requested to be rezoned. Lilja commented that it was her understanding that according to the notices and letters received previous to the meeting, the request is being made to allow an auto accessory store. Lilja stated that the residents would like to know where the development would start, referring to trees and the location close to the river. I ,ilja noted that the B-3 zoning district is designed to capture high traffic, and she indicated that there are already a lot of other locations within the City suitable for this type of development. Lilja stated that her concerns are the noise, lighting, signage, traffic, potential environmental elTeets, and stacking and storage associated with this request. Lilja stated that it seems that this space is too small and too close to a residential area for such an intense business. Lilja asked about the yellow lines shown on the location map used for site location reference. Grittman stated that the yellow lines do not indicate areas included in the rezoning request, but rather show parcel delineations. Lilja asked about the amendment. Grittman stated that the applicants are not requesting the amendment. Grittman stated that if rezoned, the uses Lilja referred to are potential uses within the B-3. For many of those uses, Grittman indicated that the applicant would have to come back for a conditional use permit, including for the proposed tire and battery store. Lilja inquired whether when the request is approved or disapproved, residents would be notified what was proposed to go in. Grittman confirmed that if a use requires a conditional use permit, they would be notified. Gittman also noted that the district ordinance language identifies what would be allowed within a given district via permitted use or conditional use. . Lilja asked for permission to read a letter prepared by another resident of the townhome association. Frie noted that the Commission had also received another resident letter and asked for a summary of the other letter. Lilja stated that the letter outlined many of the same concerns Lilja had expressed earlier, which included noise, traffic and potential environmental effects. The property owner stated that she sleeps during day and works at night. The writer had stated that car repair less than one hundred feet away will destroy what she pays taxes for. The writer asked what the City would do to protect residents from noise, safety issues, and Illaintaining the road into MacCarlund Plaza. 4 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Lilja asked the Commission to use the zoning that is in place and help the applicants be more creative in their thinking, Lilja stated that the residents are not in favor ofthis at all. Frie asked if she speaks for the group, Lilja confirmed, Walt Albold, resident of Riverside Drive townhomes, also addressed the Commission. Albold stated that there should be something in writing regarding the buffer zone, if the rezoning is approved, Albold stated that a fence and shrubs are not good enough, Abel asked if the applicants had developed MacCarlund. He stated that one thing the residents had come across was that the City was not responsible for the maintenance happens of the streets, which he indictaed he did not understand. Frie asked Albold if residents pay association fees. Albold stated that they do, Frie stated that it is most likely that maintenance, including private streets, was the initial intent ofthe association fees. Albold stated that residents were not aware of that when they moved in, Frie asked staff to respond, Grittman stated that the street that serves the townhouse development is private, The association owns the street and is responsible for the maintenance. Frie stated that was his understanding with associations as the responsible party, Frie suggested that the residents visit with their association company on this issue. Frie noted that ifthe rezoning is accomplished, all buffer information has to be laid out before any permits are issued. . Dan Gassier spoke to the Commission on behalf of A Glorious Church. Gassier stated that he wanted to address both the rezoning and amendment, Gassier noted that the Commission had held a discussion a lllonth or two ago about the types of uses that would be allowed in commercial districts, Gassier stated that in the City's own staff report, a recommendation for denial was spelled out. Gassier indicated that he shares concerns already heard here, He stated that the church abuts PZM propel1y that he does not want to see the PZM zoning changed, Grittman clarified that the amendment item is not up for consideration, Carol Albold, 149 Riverview Drive, stated that she is concerned about IIart Boulevard and the traffic associated with these types of uses, She inquired what changes would be made to handle additional use, as there is already quite a bit oftraffic located here, Maryann Pearson, Riverside townhol11e resident, stated that it was her understanding that the City of Monticello was paid $35,000 to make sure these kinds of complications didn't come up, Staff and the Commission stated that they were unaware of any such negotiation, Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing, Suchy stated that she is not in favor of rezoning this parcel. Suchy noted that the nOlthwest corner ofthe lot is within close proximity to Swan Park, which she stated is a wonderful asset for the City of Monticello, Suchy stated that the uses allowed under a rezoning may create more noise and potential detrimental effects to this area, Spartz asked about the zoning designation on the other side of Highway 75. Grittman stated that the other side is 8-4, . Frie noted that PZM is a transitional zone and asked what the difference is between B-4 and B-3, Grittl11an explained that the 13-3 zone is geared toward automobile uses, B-4 is more retail oriented, which is why it was applied to Ryan site, Dragsten noted that by ordinanee, anything in B-3 would be allowed in B-4, Grittman noted that the B-4 district allows more types of uses than B-3, In the future, Frie asked staff to provide all three columns of eOlnparable uses when the potential rezoning is to commercial. 5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 Dragsten stated that even if the zoning doesn't change, the area will change. Dragsten noted that by ordinance, the property owners are allowed to put in a stripmall currently. He stated that there are many commercial uses that would be allowed in PZM. Dragsten stated that across the street, the City has already rezoned to B-4. He commented that the City had also just rezoned an area next to a senior housing facility to B~4. Dragsten stated that this area would fit with B-3 in his opinion. His stated concern is the permitted uses in the B-3 and B-4. Frie asked Oragsten if this rezoning was approved, wouldn't this put other PZM areas in jeopardy. Dragsten stated that it could, but he didn't know that there are a lot of PZM areas surrounded on three sides by commercial or industrial zones. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT DUE TO THE BOUNDARY WITH RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE CONFLICTS THAT COULD BE CREATED BY B-3 USES, PZM IS THE MOST SUITABLE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE SITE. hie noted there will not be two decisions. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for Rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highwav Business) or B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company Grittman noted that as discussed, the purpose of the PZM district is to create a transition betwecn uses. Grittman commented that in this case, the bulk of resjdential is buffered by the parcel that would retain the PZM designation. Staff is recommending rezoning to B-4, which is the most common commercial zone in the area. Grittman re-stated that B-3 is f()cused on automobile uses, while B-4 accommodates a more acceptable range of retail commercial uses. Grittman reported that in this case, there remains a transition to residentially zoned properties. For that reason, staff recommend approval of the rezoning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Williamson, MMC Land Company and property owner, made himself available to answer questions. Frie stated that the agenda item calls for rezoning to B-3 or B-4 and asked if Williamson is receptive to B-4. Williamson contirmed that he was. Dan Gassier again addressed the Commission, and stated that he prefers the entire area to stay PZM due to the residential uses directly across from this property. Hc stated that adjacent owners need to protect the value ofthcir properties. Carl Talonen, 9796 Halt Boulevard, stated that he does not want to see the change to B-4, especially the eastern-most parcel. Frie asked him to note his location. Talonen stated that he owns the parcel directly across from eastern parcel. David Gassier, 6117 Mi II Run Road, asked if the eastern parcel would be rezoned the B-4, would other restrictions apply, especially as it is so close to residential. For example, referring to adult uses, (lassieI' stated that it was noted previously that there are restrictions in terms of distance. Grittman responded that the primary requirement would be the buffer requirement 6 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . for distance and screening between residential and commercial uses. Grittman stated that there are also some use restrictions in terms of separation. Gassier asked if it would be possible for a tire shop could be located on the eastern parcel under B-4 zoning. Grittman contirmed it would be allowed, although it would require a conditional use permit. Frie restated that the rezoning docs not allow anything in until applied for, in terms of conditional uses. Gassier stated that his main concern is noise. Josh Blonigen, 9806 Hart Boulevard, stated that he is one of the closest residents to these parcels and is opposed to the rezoning. Blonigan noted the potential traffic. Blonigan stated that while he recognized that some uses under a 8-4 may need to come back for a conditional use permit and that the interchange may cause the area to change in terms of use, he stated that if the area is rezoned the chance is not good for the neighborhood that the request for CUP would be denied. Yvette Weirgang, 309 Riverview Drive, said that her concern is that, even if the property owners have to come back to the Commission and Council, once rezoned, the potential conflicts are still one step closer. She stated that many more business are permitted, and there is less the residents can say. Frie asked if she had seen the list of permitted and conditional uses, and if not that she check the list for reference. . Hearing no flllther comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Dragsten commented that he understands the neighbor's concerns. However, he stated that when you have a concrete plant across the street, it seems that anything that would come in would be less noise than before. Dragsten stated that there may actually be less noise with the new arrangement ofthe interchange. Dragsten stated that the size of this site will also restrict what will go in. Spartz inquired whether the Commission would have to approve the whole parcel. Grittman stated that they could choose to rezone any or all of the parcels. Spartz agreed that someday, something more commercial will go on those parcels. Spartz indicated that as the parcel to the east does still abut the residential, the rezoning is still a concern. Suchy has a tendency to agree with Spartz and would recommend leaving the eastern parcel as PZM. Posusta stated that he sees this area as a lot more conducive to B-3. Posusta stated that he thinks people need to be reminded that the easterly lot will face a frontage road or face ?He indicated that what will face the residential would probably be the back yard and be buffered. Frie stated that the rezoning to commercial is consistent with the comp plan. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO B-3, BASED ON A FINDING THAI' THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR 1'1 IE AREA (DUE TO HIGHWAY PROXIMITY AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES) IS THE B-3 DISTRICT. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE REZONING TO B-4, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA (DUE TO HIGHWAY PROXIMITY AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES) IS THE B-4 DISTRICT. 7 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO REZONE '1'0 13-4, CLARIFYING 'I'HAT THE MOTION WOULD BE FOR ALL THREE PARCELS. Spartz noted the discussion surrounding the Commission's previous approval for AST Sports, suggesting that moving forward to B-3 or B-4 will open up the area to increased traffic. Spartz stated that he doesn't know that the City has a handle on the traffic situation currently. Posusta commented that because of the redesign of the interchange, Ilighway 75 will have less traffic than now. Suchy stated that this request seems very similar to the previous request and stated that she does not want residents to be subject to the noise and traffic. Suchy indicated that the City must be very specific about this when coming so close to the residential area. IN A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, THE MOTION FAILS 2-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Grittman stated that they can go to Council with split vote. Frie directed that the item go on to the Council. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Development Stage PUD and amendemtn to PUD for a retail/commercial development on Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. Applicant: Mielke/Loch Retail Development Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that this parcel is part of an approved PUD for the larger plat. As part ofthat PUD, Grittman explained that an amendment for development stage PUD is needed in order to change the use from the approved gas/convenience store to a multi-tenant retail center. Grittman noted the proposed project;s location in relationship to the balance of the block, adjacent roads, and access points. Grittman stated that the rear ofthe building faces Cedar. He also noted that the elimination of the convenience store/gas station creates an opportunity for retail development that is a less intense use. The previous plan also had circulation conflicts, which this plan improves upon. However, Grittman did note that the proposed use does change the drive aisle, due to the size of building. Grittman stated that a series of parking stalls back into the drive aisle. Grittman stated that staff has asked the applicant to consider some design modifications to maximize the visibility in this location, which they indicated they would do. Grittman referrcd to the other commcnts listed in Exhibit Z. These include conditions which would address the small amount of green space and the treatment of the face of the building along Cedar. Staff would recommend a curbed island at the front entrance of the building with a landscaping treatment. Staff has also suggested that where there is sidewalk, the applicant could add some alternative types of paving to enhance pedestrian areas. Grittman stated that as noted in the report, they do need to add landscaping just to meet code. In discussion with the applicant, they have agreed that they will also try to accomplish the dress- up of the Cedar side of the building. Grittman stated that staff feel that the conditions can be meet, and that the conditions mostly serve as reminders as part of the final package. Staff recommends approval of the request. Frie inquired about approving both the development stage PUD and amendment at one time. Grittman stated that they go together. Suchy asked if the Commission could require signage on both sides as she thinks it would be 8 Planning Commission Minutes] 2/06/05 . helpful to consumers. Grittman stated that would be a good idea and noted that there would be signs on both sides. Patch stated that the utility area lacks signs and explained that may be because signs imply entrance. Patch stated that what the applicants have proposed will help, but not confuse. Frie referred to the sign ordinance in terms of what the applicant had proposed. Grittman stated that the repOlt discusses the signage allowances, which they are a little above. However, the Commission could approve that overage via the PUD. Spartz asked about required and proposed parking spaces in relationship to the parcel to north. Grittman stated that there is a shared parking situation. The applicant and staff knew there would be a shortage, but the idea is that they would share the spaces. Spartz asked about the island staff proposed. Grittman commented that the addition would create a traffic break and allow the opportunity for the applicant to provide some additional green to the project. Dragsten stated that he was also concerned about parking. Dragsten asked if this property abuts Wendy's. Grittman answered that it does not. Gritiman said that one parcel is awaiting development and that is where the discussed "future" parking would come into play. Dragsten asked whether it would still be available should this plan move forward. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten asked about the overages on signs. Grittman stated that the freestanding signage is consistent with what was originally approved. Dragsten stated that he does like the building and likes the design. Dragsten stated that he thinks it will be a nice addition. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke, Mielke Development, and AI Loch, of Loch Jewelers, addressed the Commission as applicants. . Mielke referred to the uniqueness of the site due to the dual street exposure, and explained that the architect had worked to carry features around both ends of the building. Mielke stated that a lot of additional parking exists on the Ultra Lube site, which can easily take care of the parking issue. In terms of the signage, Mielke referred to the previously approved plat and PU D. Loch stated that they will be enhancing the corner entrance, putting in a concrete island. Loch stated that by doing this, they will be able to control parking access, and it will also be a walkway. It will not be landscaped. Frie asked for the record if that would satisfy the condition. Grittman stated that it would. Mielke reviewed the other conditions. Referencing that the landscape plan is to include additional trees, Mielke stated that the landscape architect had came up with II trees versus what was recomlnended. Mielke also referred to the requirement for the 35 shrubs, stating that because the City required a IS' easement due to the large amount of utilities, there is limited space for landscaping. Mielke also stated that there was a miscalculation in the staff report for perimeter footage. Therefore, Mielke stated that he believes they have met the code. Grittman stated that the applicant and staff can work that out and determine if code has been met. Mielke stated that they have no problem with the photometric plan bcing subject to review and approval. . Frie commented that Grittman had noted in his report that the nine listed conditions are there for reference. Mielke stated that he would like to check them off with Commission so that they don't come back later. Patch stated that the lighting plan will be subject to review as part of building permit. Once into construction documents, the individual lights will be reviewed, as well. Patch stated that for the most part, these items are laundry list conditions that arc typical to any development. 9 Planning Commission Minutes] 2/06105 . Mielke and Loch indicated that they had no problem with condition 5, which required that the building elevations be similar on all sides, or with condition 7 requiring that grading, drainage and utility plans be subject to the comment of the City Engineer. However, Mielke requested that condition 6, required pavers in sidewalk area, be renlOved. Mielke stated that this parcel is part of a larger PUD, and this has not been required on any other parcel. Mielke also questioned why they would need an agreement drafted by the City Attorney, as conditioned. Grittman stated that it is essentially a PUD agreement, and that the requirement isn't new, just addresses these improvements specifically. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten referred to the easement area on the corner of Cedar and Chelsea, inquiring if this area poses a problem. Grittman stated that the only issue is tree count. The shrub count that applicant proposes looks fine. Grittman stated that he would prefer to keep the pavers as a condition to mitigate the amount of pavement, but he is receptive to colorcd concrcte to separate pedestrian areas from thc parking area. Spartz stated that he is curious about the acsthetics qucstion ofthe pavers. lIe stated that Council has dealt enough with this, and it is probably all right to leave it out. . Suchy asked about the parking in the northeast portion and the stacking of vehicles on Cedar. M iclkc prcsented the site plan, referring to the parking and stacking via the central drive aisle. Mielke stated that there is a dip in the ccntral aislc to slow traffic through thc site. Suehy asked if traffic bccomes a problem, would the applicants have any issue with putting up additional signage. Mielke stated they do not, as they also have a vested interest in good traftic flow. Dragstcn stated that those stalls won't be used that much, as drivers will anticipate that thcy won't be able to gct in or out easi ly. Posusta stated this projcct will be a great addition. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ 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 EXI IIBIT Z, AS FOLLOWS. 1. i\ jlareH aeeI:lS:.: l:lu:.:l:lml:lnt and ,:hared parbng agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City. 2. Tlw ::tripl:ld area within the ,:outhwest portion of the site :~hall he rai:~ed and rcplaeed with landseaped island:~. J. The applieant shall reo ise the L,nH:~eaping Flan In ineludl:l additilJBaltree.: ,md ::hruB.: at the FeriBletl:lr .)1' thl:l Building and sill:l (lrea as noted in thi,: report. /\lllandseaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of a one year landsoaping gu~,raRtee. 4. 5. . 6. 7. The photometric plan shall be subjeelto the review and approval of the Building OnJeial. The building elevations shall he similar throughout the entire building, with false windows at the southern, eastern, and northern portions of the bui Iding. The erlllerl:lte ....aIL eennoeting the parking area to the huilding shall include a miJ;ture of decorative pavers. Thc grading. drainagc. erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval oflhe City Engineer. 10 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . 8. The applicant shall enter into a dcvclopment agreement and PlJD agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Atlorney. 9. Additional COlllments from City Staft~ Planning COlllmission or City Council. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. CHAIRMAN FRIE REQUESTED THAT CONDITION 3 BE INCLlJDED FOR THE RECORD. MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED, 4-0. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Variance to the R~ 1 Zoning District Standards for lot width for Pine View. a 5-unit single-familv development. Applicant: West Side Market Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the first phase of the proposed plat consists of four single-family home lots. It is staff's understanding that the applicant intends to plat a fifth lot upon the re-alignment to Otter Creek Road. Thc rcalignment will provide a 90-degree angle intersection with Highway 75. Grittman stated that the City has come to an agreement with the adjacent property owner for the realignmcnt. Grittman referred to the companion variance request, which is needed in order to get five lots. Grittman noted that as discussed during the previous item, the City must make a finding of hardship that is non-economic. For ncw plats, Grittman reported that is a difficult finding to make, Plats can casily be designed to meet the requirement with only four lots. . Grittman stated that the proposed plat is set up with shared driveways, both accessing Highway 75. Staff has raiscd concern over that dcsign, due to the driveways entering via a turn lane. Grittman indicated that design is not typically even allowed. Grittman referrcd to thc Wright County Engineer's lettcr, which states that is not the preferred design. Staffs recommendation is that the plat be redrawn, avoiding direct access to Highway 75 and with only four lots. (Jrittman stated that in a previolls gencration ofthjs plat, a rear driveway design was not supported by the neighborhood. IIowever, staff belicves that with proper landscaping, the applicant could develop a design that meets expectations for those neighbors and is a bettcr plan in terms of safety. Grittman suggested that the applicant and Commission possibly consider this area as R-2A, with narrow lot single family, with a private drive conccpt, as previously proposed. Staff still feels that design is appropriate and eliminates the need for variances. Grittman stated that it is both planning and cngineering staff's opinion any plat approved should rely on a rear-loaded acccss, consolidating garbage and mail service. Ifnot, the applicant should otherwise accommodatc stopping traffic in the turn lane. Staff's recommendation is to table action for these reasons, and to accommodate the timing of the land purchase for the real ignment of Otter Creek Road. Fric stated that the area is not being utiJitized and hc feels that there is a need for something that will be a win for residents, the City and the developer. . Dragsten asked about the issue of drivcways accessing directly onto 75. Grittman diSCllssed the problem of pedestrian access to mailboxes and garbage pick-up and the potential for stopping traffic in a traveling lanc of Highway 75. Grittman stated that even with a rear- loaded design, staff would look for sidewalk for those purposes. Frie referred to the County letter, which statcs that while their preference is for all four acccsses to come from Otter Creek Road, there may be a requirement for some discussion 11 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . between developer and City. The letter also said that if there is no agreement, the County would allow the two shared access drives. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy L,ane, spoke to the Commission. Solberg stated that he doesn't believe the plan should be for five homes, that the lot sizes are important to buyers and existing property owners. Solberg said that he believes the City should insist on the applicant meeting the code. Solberg indicatcd that he understands that the City is buying property. lIe questioned whether the City is giving this property away to the developer, or will he have to buy it. Posusta stated that it depends on how thc road is platted. If it is by metes and bounds, he gets the land back. Solberg stated that he doesn't like rear-loaded entry proposal either. He said that the City has driveways accessing into turn lanes in other areas. Solberg restated that he thinks the plat should be restricted to four lots. Solberg asked when they would do the fifth lot. Posusta answered it would be after the road was realigned. O'Neill reported that the City would be proposing plans and specs for the realignment as early as the next Council meeting. Posusta asked O'Neill about the legalities for the purchase of the vacated propeliy. O'Neill stated that the issue has to come before the City Council as part of the platting process. . Diane Peter, 1120 Sandy Lane, stated her objection to driveways in the back. She commented that the rest of the block isn't like that, and that she doesn't want a driveway in her backyard. Peter stated that there were originally four lots along Sandy Lane. Frie asked about benning for a rear-loaded design. Grittman suggested that if there were a rear driveway, it would be landscaped, so that people wouldn't be looking at driveways. Candy Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, related that she is against the five lots proposed and granting of the variances. Johnson stated that she was present for the first public hearing. She cited Mr. Posusta's earlier comment, in which he had indicated that the law is only reason why not to grant a variance. She stated that Frie had responded that the law is what the Commission has to go by. L,ane asked the Commission to consider what the law is in this case. She inquired about the lot square footage requirements. Grittman responded that the R- 1 standards would be applied here. Patch indicated he could provide information. Lane sought confirmation that a variance would not relax side setbacks. Patch and Grittman both concurred that lot setbacks would not be relaxed. Applicants Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker lnade themselves available for comment. Holthaus stated that in response to the hardship issue, from their standpoint, the hardship was created prior to annexation. I-Iolthaus stated that the City changed the zoning, which to him was a taking without compensation. Holthaus stated that they had a business use that turned into a residential use. Since that tinle, Holthaus said that he had brought forward a townhouse plat, and was informed the school wouldn't I ike it. He brought forward an 8-unit plat, which the neighborhood didn't like. Holthaus stated that he has compromised with this plan. Holthaus commented that he is trying to find a way to move forward that makes economic sense. He indictaed that he has seen variances granted and there is a level of economics to each one. . Holthaus stated that this may not be a perfect compromise, but it sounds like maybe the neighbors and County could be happy with this plan. He said that in regard to the service issue, this situation happens all along Broadway. Holthaus stated that he would put the mailboxes interior to the lot; the proposed sidewalk would go nowhere. In summary, Holthaus indicated that he is out of alternatives and is looking for action on this plan. 12 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Frie asked if this is approved, does the applicant understand that the fifth lot is contingent on the realignment of Otter Creek Road. Holthaus confinned. IIearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that as to the rear versus front access issue, he prefers this design. Dragsten stated that one of the other alternatives mentioned had been approved. Holthaus responded that he had pulled it because of opposition and the many requirements on landscaping. Dragsten noted that in essence, there was a plan that Commission had approved, but applicant didn't like the conditions, so it was pulled before it went to Council. Dragsten agreed that the front sidewalk proposal doesn't make sense. He questioned the Otter Creek Road realignment. Grittman responded that it is his understanding that the realignment is primarily due to the angle of the intersection. Frie asked the applicants if they had seen the conditions. Holthaus replied that they had and that both the sidewalk and requirement for additional shoulder seem unreasonable. Holthaus stated that a sidewalk on Otter Creek is acceptable. Dragsten stated that the main issue for him is the lot size. It seems as if there is room is for com prom ise on the other items. . Posusta reiterated that this plat represents a win-win-win, as mentioned earlier by Frie. He stated that the City and neighborhood get rid of an eyesore, and the City wins because it gets five properties on the tax rolls versus a blighted property. 'fhere is no rear driveway, which the neighborhood was against. The neighbors also win because what was originally R-2 is now less dense. Posusta stated that this is a better plan than before. Patch asked ifthere would be a maintenance agreement on the shared driveways. Holthaus stated that there would be. Patch asked about proposed driveway width. Holthaus reported that Wright County required that the maximum width would be 16'. O'Neill stated that there are some positive things about this plat. However, the reason for the safety concern is because the access points are in the turn lane. Staffs proposal for a sidewalk takes people to the crosswalk, and keeps them out of the turn lane. It is meant to serve residents of the proposed plat. Essentially, the City doesn't want to create a loss by creating a safety issue. Holthaus stated that the right turn lane was put in by the store and that the safety issues could be minimized with cluster mailboxes and sidewalk, and with wheel garbage carts. Dragsten asked for the length ofthe turn lane. Grittman responded that the County standard is 300'. Ilolthaus stated that the turn lane starts after the first access now. O'Neill noted it would be changed to meet standards with improvements. Spattz asked for clarification on the location of the fifth lot. Grittman noted the configuration after the realignment. . Dragsten asked what type of hOlnes would be built. Holthaus stated that they would be similar to what is already there. 13 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE TO APPROVE VARIANCES FOR LDT WIDTHS LESS TIIAN 80 FEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN A HARDSHIP IN COMPLYING WITH THE R-l STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Suchy stated she would prefer they meet the R-I standards at 80'. Spartz agreed. Holthaus stated that four lots won't work due to thc economics of the pr~ject. Posusta stated that if you do go with four lots with rear-loaded garages, who would maintain thc drive. Holthaus stated that the City would require privatc maintenancc. Dragsten asked if here is anything that can be done to enhancc the house to offset the variance. Dragsten asked about house and garage sizes. Patch cited standards. Dragsten stated that perhaps requiring a larger garage would be an option. Holthaus stated that the suggestcd larger garages won't fit. Suchy explained that she did not see a hardship to justify the variance. Holthaus stated that there would be the same totalnwnber of lots on the front side as on the rear, adjacent to Sandy Lane. IN A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, THE MOTION FAILS 2-2, WITJ-l COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. . Frie directed the motion to move forward to thc City Council. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAl, OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PROPOSED, WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. I. Addition of a paved 10 fbot wide shoulder adjacent to the turn lane to allow garbage, n;:<:y<:ling. mail, and other service vehides to stop out of the travel and turn lanes on Ilighway 75. 2. Add.ition of a 5 foot wide sidewalk for the length of the development be constru<:ted to provide pedestrian access to the pathway at Otter Creek Road. 3. Addition ofpubli<: sidewalk easement along the iI'ont lot lines of the individual lots to a<:<:ommodate the sidcwalk noted above. 4. Additionul setback for the proposed houses to accommodate both the sidt:walk easernenL and turn-around pads tor vehi<:les exiting the individual driveways onto Ilighway 75. 5, Consideration of locations tor common mail box grouping and garbage pi<:kup sites that minimizc impads to the County Ilighway. 6. Final review and approval of Engineering staff relating to utility servi<:e and grading and drainage design. 7. Exe<:ution of a Devcloprnent ^greemcnt prior to approval of the Final Plat. S. Rcvision of the Preliminary Plat drawings relle<:ting all revisions /(lr City records prior to submission of the Final 1'1 at. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Holthaus questioned the conditions of approval. Frie clarified that if approved with 14 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 conditions, it is between staff and applicant to resolve those conditions. Frie noted that conditions] and 4 seem to be the issue. CHAIRMAN FRIE AMENDED THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT CONDITIONS] & 4 ARE TO BE DISCUSSED WITlI THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER ORAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION FAILS 2-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Frie directed this item to go on to Council, as well. Schumann explained that staff would research the tied vote on the variance. If a tie is determined to be a denial, the applicants may follow the formal appeals process. Grittman stated that because it was not actually denied, the request may need to go back to the Planning Commission. Frie stated that in that case, the Commission would be better off tabling. Holthaus stated that he would rather handle it by appeal to Couneil. At the request of Commissioner Suchy, Chairman Frie called a five lninute recess. Chairman Frie called the meeting back to order. II. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a requcst for Preliminary Plat and an Amendment to PUD for Poplar Hill, a 298-unit single-family residential subdivision. Applicant: Insignia Development Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request, illustrating the changes that had been made to the plat, which had been made primarily in the townhoues and apartment area ofthe development. Grittman indicated that in their review of the previous plat and pu~, the City Council had denied the applicant the ability to develop the apartll1ent portion of the plat. Since that time, the applicant has redesigned the plat to reflect a completcly single f~lIl1ily product. The revised plat area ineludes R-I and R-2A homes. Grittman stated that the remainder of the projcct is unchanged. The one additional recommendation from staff in the rcplatted area is to add a sidewalk in the area, as City policy requircs sidewalks on any 1110derate volume streets, which would be the case here. Apart from that, the replatted lots are consistent with the proposed zoning. In terms of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Grittman noted the other COll1ments listed in Exhibit Z. Grittman stated that when looking through the building plans, a number of the home designs can be built as split entry designs. He stated that staff do want to place some kind of limitation on split entry homes, with a maximum of 25% of all homes as splits. Grittman stated that the applicants have indicated that far less are likely to be built that way. Overall, the amendments requested are acceptable and staff recommend approval of the both the preliminary plat and amendment to PUD. Dragsten asked what design amenities have been provided for in exchange for flexibility in ordinance standards. Grittman responded that the developer is providing private parks in addition to the land dedication for the City park itself~ which is an extra amenity to this project. The devcloper is providing lnore land than required. The developer is also providing a significant reduction in density from what cOlllprehensive plan would allow in this area. Dragsten asked about the noted swimming pool. Cirittman stated that there would be a swinuning pool within the development as part of the private park. 15 Plallning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Frie asked about the easement area in terms of the park dedication requirement. Grittman stated that no credit is given for the easement area, clarifying that the City will be taking it, but not crediting them for it. Frie asked what the areas offlexibility were specifically. Grittman stated that the flex in Poplar Hill is mostly to the building standards, which is sinlilar to what was given to past applicants. Spartz asked about the length of Exhibit Z and the discrepancy with condition 6 regarding parking stalls versus the staff recommendation. Grittman stated that in review of the parking demand for the park, the] 00 stall number is the better number. Spartz asked ifthere is a possibility of creating an additional access to the parking lot. Spartz commented on the need for additional access due to drop-offs and pick ups. Grittman stated that the parking lot is designed to circulate through the lot. Suchy asked about condition 9, indicting that there was a difference between the report and the conditions for the number of parking stalls at the private park. Grittman answered that the number of parking stalls required there should be five, not ten. Suchy asked if the design conditions related to the styles ofthe homes or the ordinance requirelnents. Grittman stated the applicant has provided general design guidelines for the homes, and their proposals do meet the requirements. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. David Adkins, representative for Insignia Development, made himself available for questions from the Commission or audience. . Jeff Fischer, 9005 Darlington A venue NE, stated that he is concerned about the road placement, so that it fits with his property. Fischer stated that he is also concerned about the height of the road in relationship to his property. Posusta asked Fisher ifhe has private driveway out to Prairie Acres. Grittman clarified that the connection to Darlington would not be constructed until the alignment was agreed upon by the two property owners. At this point, Grittman reported that Insignia will dedicate half the road right of way until the time Fisher is ready to develop. There is no requirement at this time that the developer build the road. Fisher stated that he understands that, he is more concerned about the height of the road. Grittman stated that staff would make a note and defer to the engineer on that question. Fischer stated that to develop his property, there will have to be another road access. He stated that there would then be a road on three sides of his property. Posusta stated that he doesn't think Fischer needs to worry about development of roads on three side for some time. Fischer said that he doesn't want to be surprised at that time, and wants less road frontage. Dragsten commented that the road access gives him more options to develop. Frie asked if Fischer had been approached regarding the road right of way. Fischer indicated there had not been much conversation with the developcr. Kim Garver, 2566 90th Street, addressed the Commission. Garver stated that she was concerned about traffic at 90th Street at Chelsea. She reconllnended noting that a three way stop sign will bc nceded at that location with this dcvclopmcnt. Garver also questioned whether the private parks would be accessible to local residents. . Bob Groen, 9831 Chamberlain ^ venue, also stated concerns regarding traffic on 90th Street. I-Ic reconunended that thc City install a path or sidewalk for kids to ride on. Groen also commented that the curve at Chelsea and 90th is a concern. Frie agreed. 16 Planning Commission Minutes 12106/05 . Dale Lusti, 9790 Chamberlain A venue, stated that as most ofthe surrounding residents are from the township, they are concerned about what zoning would be around this. He stated that he had heard discussions about zoning for their propelties. Grittman responded that because the majority of the surrounding properties arc still in the township, the land is zoned according to County regulations. Grittman stated that the land stays as it is currently zoned through the County until the property owner decides to develop and be annexed. ???? asked about the potential for commercial development on this site. Grittman indicated the proposed commercial is actually on the Schluender property. O'Neill referred to land~use plan for the area, noting it as a mixed-use designation. Dragsten noted to'?'?? That he can come in to the City offices at anytime and discuss the comprehensive plan and potential zoning. Ilearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Oragsten commented positively on the drop in density. lIe also il1dicated that in relationship to the reconstruction of 90th Street, the Commission had previously requested that when the development was 75% completed, the reconstruction should move forward. Oragsten stated that he likes the current plal1 better thal1 the previous and believes it provides a better blend of residential. Oragsten inquired whether the ordinance requires a 1400 square foot foundation size in the R-l A. Grittman confirmed. Frie asked O'Neill about the acceptability ofthe parkland al1d when the comments of the Parks Commission would be available. Grittman stated that Parks Commission has looked at the plan and O'Neill stated that they were satisfied in what they had seen. . Spartz stated that he likes what the developer has done with the plat, as he believes it will be far more appealing. Spartz stated that the lower density will also help with the traffic situation. Spartz indicated that 90th Street is still an issue in that regard. Suchy indicated she is happy with the proposed chal1ges. Frie asked about the price range for homes. Adkins replied that the R-l lots are priced around $80,000, al1d are targeted toward homes over $300,000. He estimated that the R-l A homes would be closer to $450,000 - $500,000. With the amenities provided, Adkins stated that the intent was toward l1ice homes. Frie asked if any of the listed conditions are of concern to the applical1t. Adkins answered that the balal1ce ofthe 21 cOl1ditiol1s are straightforward. Adkins did question the 90th Street reconstruction. He stated that Insignia is paying for School Boulevard and the development is paying for the cost to develop a future minor collector. Those collector roads cause double- fronting lots. Additionally, Il1signia is providing the City with parkland, and beil1g assessed for reconstruction of90'h Street. Adkil1s questioned the implication of upgrading 90th at 75% at this time, as this development would only be responsible for their half of the frontage. Drgasten clarified that he is not inferring that Insignia pay for all of it, just that the condition gives the City a guideline. O'Neill confirmed that the developer is paying for half of the reconstruction is standard City pol icy. . Adkins stated that there will be a swimming pool and a large amount of development lal1dscapil1g, both of which will be association maintained. In terms of the parking area, Adkil1s stated that the el1gil1eer had just put in parking area based on estimate. I-Ie 110ted that they al1d staff had discussed two parking access points. Ilowever, as the City would be paying for the parkil1g lot illlprovemel1ts, Commission would be asking the City to front additional 17 . 2. 3. . 4. 5. 6. . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 costs for the second access. In relationship to the Fischer parcel, Adkins indicated that their engineer will look at the grading plan and work with him and berm if need be. Adkins referred to the plan for temporary cu-de-sac at that location, and noted that they will escrow for half of cost of the road. Adkins stated that Poplar Hill is not a gated community. However, the small pool area is intended for the residents of Poplar Hill and Illaintained by the homeowners association. O'Neill followed up that the Parks Commission would like the public park built soon. As sllch, they will work with the developer to try to get fine grading and seeding done so it is ready by 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT AND REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIl3IT Z AS LISTED BELOW, WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION REQUIRING THAT 90Tll STREET BE RECONSTRUCTED A T THE TIME THAT POPLAR HILL IS 75% DEVELOPED. I. All lots and proposed units. with the exceptions of Lots 17 and I S of nloek 5 "!lag lots" shall meet the performance standards per the zoning ordinance, unless otherwise noted within the application PlID narrative and exhibits. The shared access 1(11' the commercial area shall be shilled to the south and shall be utilized as a single-loaded access. The development of the commercial area shall require a separate site plan review. Approval orthe Poplar Ilill pun shi-lll not be considered an approVlII JIll' any business use within the site until additional plans arc submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Access onto Lot 1-5, Block 17 shall corne off of Weston Drive only. The City shllll need to determine if a portion of the easement area is acceptable to be ineluded in the park land dedication. The applicant shall limit the parking stalls within the park area to one hundred (100) parking stalls within the casement area. The remaining land area shall remain open space. The applicant shull identify handicapped accessible parking stalls within the purk i!rei!. 7. The final street plans shall be subject to the review lmd llpproval of the City Engineer. S. The singlcl~1Il1ily homes shall meet all performance requirements of their i!ssociated districts as del1ned in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planner's report. 9. Outlot.J shall have a minimum offive (5) parking off-street parking stalls. 10. All single family residential lots within the development shall contain the required two overstory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require ti.lltr. II. No more than twenty-five (25) percent of all homes shull be split entry design in the R-I and H.-2A areas. This shall become a requirement of the privi!te covenants. 12. All lots within the R-2A district shall be required to have no less than 60% of the front yard designated as landscaped garden areas. The City has prepared a site example imd narri!tive information regarding this requirement which will be applicable to this site. 13. The homeowners ussociation will be responsible for landscaping maintenance in the yards orall R-2A homes. 14. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan bused upon the conditions and recommendations flHllld in the planner's report. 18 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 15. . 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. AIIIlll1dscaped medians and HOA common landscaped areas shall be required to be irrigated. All site signage that will be used in the residential development must be submitted prior to final approvul and mLlstmeet the requirement of the sign Ordinance. Issues related to the three wetland areas on the site are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. The grading, drainuge, erosion control and utility pl,ms are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PlID agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Allorney. The applicant is to prepare a PlJD standards guide which is to contain pun information specific to each zoning district within the development. ^ copy of the IIOA documents shall be subject to the review and upproval of the City. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSiONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for setbacks in the I-I (Light Industrial) and 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello . Girttman reported that the City has encountered issues related to the current side yard setback requirements in the I-I and 1-2 Districts. The standards require 30 foot setbacks along all interior lot lines. This has raised issues for some property owners related to the use of the property. Grittman stated that in these wider setback areas, the space tends to be occupied by additional paved area and/or outside storage, since it is not usable for any other purpose. Grittman indicated that planning staff is recommending a reduction in the interior side yard requirements to 15 feet, while maintaining the wider 30 foot setback along the street side of corner lots. Grittman stated that this reduction will permit more intensive use of Industrial lots, and may result in more landscaping area in those side yards, since the 15 foot dimension does not accommodate driveway or storage uses. Grittnlall noted that the amendment would not affect fire code requirements for additional setback based on building type, as noted in the staff report. Grittman also stated that this reduction in setback requirement is also subordinate to the buffer yard setback standard. In cases where an II or 12 parcel is adjacent to a residential area, the wider setback standard and landscaping requirement would apply. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL GRANT GREATER USE OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN UPGRADED SITE AND BUILDING PLANS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. . 19 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 13. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an interim use permit for the relocation of a billboard within the River Street right of way. City of Monticello Grittman reported that as the Commission is aware, the City is in process on construction of the I -94 and CSAH 18 interchange. As part of the construction, the City acquired property which included three billboards. Grittman stated that one can remain in place, and two will need to be relocated. The request before the Commission is to approve the relocation of one of those. Grittman stated that the proposed relocation site is zoned industrial, and located within the existing right of way for River Street. The City can grant relocation via an interim use permit only, otherwise billboards are illegal. Grittman stated that staff recommend a maximum length of 15 years on the permit, to accommodates the lease period. Dragsten asked if this is something the City inherited and therefore has to provide for. Grittman replied that the City has to provide a location or buy them out. Frie asked if there was any comment from the adjacent property Electro Industries and noted they were not present to comment. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO GRANT LAMAR SIGN COMPANY AND INTERIM USE PERMIT ALLOWING RELOCATION OF A SIGN FROM THE AVR SITE TO THE RIVER STREET LOCATION. THE TERM OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO MATCH THE TIME TERMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL LAMAR/AVR LEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. Grittman noted that another request may come forward at some point for the other relocation. 14. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 20