Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-04-2003 . . . MINlJTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - March 4, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Fred Patch and Steve Grittman S tafT: 1. Call to order. Vice Chair Rich Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetinf.! held Februarv 4,2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 4, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED Tilt;; MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Steve Grittman asked to update the members on the Hillside Farms development. This was placed as item 12 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fix a special home occupation permit allowinf.! a photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne & Patricia Mayer Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided a summary of the applicant's request for a special home occupation permit to operate a photographic studio in a residential district. I Ie advised that the purpose of the conditional use permit/public hearing is to make sure that the business will not interrupt the neighborhood with such thing as signage, traffic, and parking. The applicants advised that this would be a relatively low intensity business and indicated only occasionally would they need to use the street for parking. Staff believes the request is in compliance with the City's ordinance and recommends approval. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Wayne Mayer, applicant, 2630 Briar Oakes Blvd, addressed the commission regarding their concerns with parking, business entrance, increased traffic during the day, weekend hours, and signage. Mayer felt there would be very little impact on traffic with only one customer at a time parking in the driveway, although there may be times when there would be 2 cars with one parking on the street, but he did advise that his driveway is large enough to handle multiple vehicles. Entrance to the studio would be through the front door and going directly downstairs, depending on the time of the year. He added that there may be weekend hours but it would still be one customer at a time. Mayer added that he does have a full time day job as well. There would be no -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . signage as Mayer agreed with the City's ordinance against signage in a residential district. The public hearing was then closed. Carlson also advised that a letter had been submitted by a neighbor who was in favor of this application. Grittman stated that the permit would become null and void if the owner were to move, adding that the permit would be for a period of one year and then at 3 year intervals after that. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDING THAT TI IE METllOD OF OPERATION PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH S"rANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY CODE. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 6. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a shopping center and ioint parkinf.! in a B-3 district. Applicant: Michael Krutzig Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the stan' report, advising of the applicant's request as well as some stafT concerns. He did note however that the applicant had met with staff earl icr in the week and had already addressed several of these concerns. . The applicant was asked to reduce the parking supply to minimize the amount of hard surface, noting that the total number of spaces shown was much greater than what is required by code. Grittman added however. that the applicant did have a concern with reducing this number due to his tenant's needs for parking. Grittman also added comments regarding the general site layout and access to the building, but again it was noted that this was particularly due to tenant needs. One item most problematic was location of the access point. It was staffs beliefat the time of the original plat the 2 lots would be sharing a driveway, noting the City Engineer's objective was to move the access point as far away hom the interscction as possible. It is expected that Cedar Street is to have a median in the left turn lane, building the median out as br as possible, and it is the City Engineer's desire to see a shared access point. The applicant was also concerned with this. Stan. would like to work that issue out with the applicant, particularly because there are access points ncxt to each other which they felt with that typc of arrangement would cause traffic conflicts. The applicant indicated that heis not the owner of Lot 2, but Staff's understanding is that he would pursue developmcnt on the entire propcrty at a future date. It was also noted that this may be worked out with the current title owner of the lot as well, and it may require cross easements or some other potcntial subdivision. Grittman fLllihcr stated that overall. staff is supporting approval of the application. . Grittman adviscd that parking could bc reduced from the north and south cnds of the site. Fred Patch added that although joint parking was statcd as part of this request, it is not a consideration in this phase but will bc in a futurc phase. He added that to the south, if joint parking is to bc considercd. the prescnt ordinancc would not allow this and they may want to amcnd the ordinance in order to accommodatc joint parking. Grittman advised that thcrc -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . would be no green space between the buildings, but rather a shared common driveway. He rurther stated that the Planning Commission may want to treat this as a PUD or an amendment to thc ordinanee, stating he felt an amendmcnt would be best. There was also a concern with building design and roof elevations. Mike Krutzig, applicant, addressed the concerns stated. In regard to access, he advised they had shined the lot lines and he was not aware that staff did not know he was not the owner of the lot to the south, adding that he had envisioned it as a stand alone drive. Ifhe does purchase the lot before the first phase is complete, he would have no objection to a common driveway, adding that he was unable to consult with Mr. Weinand, owner of the lot, as he was out of town. Dragsten added that a common drive would save him money as well, as there would be no need for curbing. There was further discussion on roof lines and Krutzig advised this was concept only and facades could be lookcd at and not limited to this. He did view the Cedar Street side as the rear staff entrance, also advising that the tenant would be a paint store and contractor entrance to the rear or side is more desirable as they try to avoid walking into retail sections. It also is better to have their entrance close to their vehicles. . Regarding the cross easement/access agreement, this would come from Mr. Weinand. Regarding the number of parking stalls, he had no objection to eliminating, but was hoperul that if they are dctermined to bc nccdcd in the future, he would be allowed to dcvelop them at that time. He further stated that this particular user would have a potential for 50 stalf and clients at one timc, and presenting with this type of parking was appealing to the two other possible users as well. He asked that he be able to kecp some of the parking at this time and possibly reduce some parking from further away, versus up closer to the building. He had no objections to addition of landscaped parking delineators and addition of over- story trees. Sign plan will be looked at in the future and hc will work with staff to ensure he mcets all requirements. Krutzig did have a concern with condition number 11 in the staff rcport asking to shift the building and parking lot. He did not see a reason f()!' this but would. comply if that is staff's request. Carlson asked Grittman for clarification and Grittman stated he agreed with the applicant that it seemed to al ign with the property bettcr with the way the applicant had shown it on his concept plan. They determined thcrc was no functional reason I()r shifting it. Krutzig added that the trash enclosure would be the same as at the Towne Centre sitc and would be shown on his building permit application. Hc would also comply with all other conditions noted in the report. Krutzig addcd that he was hoping to start his projcct as soon as the weather pcrmits and that he is vcry fortunate in getting tenants to make commitments. Hc added that these tenants are in need of places to locate very soon. . Ililgart questioned. Grittman how many parking stalls the applicant is asked to eliminate and -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 Grittman advised the code requires 90, the applicant had proposed 130, and that he did understand Krutzig's concern although it was his experience that even if there were 50 stalls in use at one time, there would sti II he adequate parking. Staff would recommend 90 and if it hecomes an issue in the future, the applicant could add more. Grittman added that this is an opportunity to cut down on storm water impacts and aesthetics. Patch added that if in the future they would have shared parking they might find that they actually have excess parking, possibly up to 20%. Krutzig added that he would reduce parking if he develops the other property. It was also advised that Highway 25 would be the main entrance. Hilgart asked if 3 tenants completed the building and Krutzig stated that it would. Hilgart wondered if there was a compromise on parking so that they do not have to spend additional money on landscaping, only to have to take it back out and add in asphalt. Krutzig asked for somewhere in the middle, and possihly after a year if they find that it is not needed he could take out some landscaping and put in asphalt. Krutzing again noted that 1 stall per every 200 is the minimum per code. Carlson stated that he would suggest Krutzig work that out with City stan~ adding that it was refreshing to have the parking minimums met. Dragsten noted that if Krutzig knows his tenants and their parking demands, it may be found that he needs thc parking. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. There was no fUliher discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A CUP ALLOWING A MULTI-TENANT SHOPPING CENTER WITH JOINT PARKING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, ELIMINATING CONDITIONS 3,4, AND 1], AND APPLICANT TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO DETERMINE PARKING NEEDS. MOTION BASED ON A FINDING TI IA T THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MO'flON CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stagc planned unit development approval allowing 8 sinl-de family units in a proposed R-2A district. Applicant: Tom Holthaus Steve Grittman provided thc staff report. The applicant is requesting concept review for a proposal allowing 8 single family units on the parcel which is currently the West Side Market. Grittman stated that duc to reconstruction of Broadway, Otter Creek Road would he realigncd to create a safer intersection. The County also requircd the applicant to close driveway access points to his site and therefore hc feels his retail operation will no longer be viable. Grittman added that the City and County have been working on this for some time. The rcalignment willlcave some ROW on the east side that will not be nccessary any longer for public street. As a result, the applicant is hoping to obtain that land, adding to West Side Market propcrty, re-zone, thcn suhdivide to meet R-2A standards. The layout is in -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . compliance with the comprehensive plan, traditional land use pattern, and re-zoning to R-2A would be an opportunity to allow this with 2 story structures. Grittman provided concept sketches and added that stairs view was by increasing the variety of these units it could be a positive improvement to the property. The R-2A allows flexibility with setbacks as well. StaiT is also recommending that the development be shifted to allow additional width from the back property line to a common driveway, allowing adequate room f<Jr landscaping and buffer from the existing residential and there appears to be enough property to allow that shift. StaiT believes this proposal would be compatible, although a slightly higher density than allowable. A landscape buffer also preserves aesthetics and additional substantial landscape amenities have been added. Grittman also noted that they are requesting the applieant to flip the end unit floor plans to allow turnaround access at the cnd of the driveway, and with the noted changes, staff is relatively satisfied that the concept meets the intent of the R-2A district and rceommcnds approval of the concept plan. . Grittman clarified how the units would line up with existing homes, adding that the ncighboring property appears to be set back further. Holthaus clarified that the property is setback approximatcly 45 ft. Grittman stated typical a R-l setback is 30 feet, R-2A allows greater flexibility and the applicant is askcd to allow 35 foot setbacks. They also discussed the need for a homeowners association due to maintenance of the common drive, which I lolthaus coneurrcd with. The addition of a sidewalk along that propcrty was again discussed and Grittman advised this had been discussed during development of Co Rd 75, but was abandoned due to the area being almost a fully developed area. Grittman further stated he felt it would be benctieial to have a sidewalk, but felt the County would need additional ROWand due to eost and practibility, he felt that idea was given up when the project was developed. The compromise was to carry a crosswalk to Otter Creek. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Candi Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, stated that she sees this development as compatible with single family homes and hcr main objection was the number of homes put on the 1 12 acre site. Many of the yards in the neighborhood are about Y2 acre. She questioned if setback requirements in an R-2A are 20 ft. on the corner, why did it only show 17 ft. on the applicant's plan. She felt this does not meet the standards. She added that it secmed they are squeezing more houses into this parcel than what even an R-2A is suggesting, other than the 45 1'1.. setback. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, stated he had no objection to tearing down the gas station or putting up houses. Objects to 45 ft. frontage and stated he doesn't feel it is consistent with the other homes. He feels they are really only increasing the size of the driveway. I Ie also asked them to address the size ofthc lots as he felt they were too small and not eonsistcnt with existing. The number of homes should also be taken into consideration. . Laura Tazelaar, 1124 Sandy Lane, stated she was opposed to the proposed alleyway and asked if there had been consideration for one aeecss closest to the residence. She felt a frontage road would be better and one access would match the rest of the rcsidences on -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . Broadway. Grittman stated he agreed with the access but again, the County would not allow any increased accesses. She asked if the buller would be landscaping or iencing and Grittl11an stated they would be open to hearing people's preferences, noting typical buffer requirel11cnts consist of landscaping. Tazelaar stated they would like an 8 H. fence and Grittman stated the Planning Commission and City Council could make that recommendation if they chose. The public hearing was then closed. Tom Ilolthaus, applicant, stated that for the most part they have address all of these issues at previous meetings. He stated the existing fence that was noted is 5 ft. on his property line and he would prefer landscaping versus a fence, but he also was okay with keeping the fence. He stated there was also a chain link fence on another property that should be moved as it is impossible to maintain his fence with the chain link fence where it is currently placed. Patch added that the ience ordinance had been amended to allow it to be placed right up to the property line, not on or over. Holthaus again stated it was a maintenance issue and would require getting permission from existing property owners to have access to it. lie felt it would be better to work it out now with a homeowner's association, rather than later. Patch felt it should be worked out with landscaping requirements at development stage. . Holthaus further advised that the homes were proposed to be slab on grade with crawl space for furnaces. IIilgart asked the proposed selling price for the homes and Holtaus stated approximately $170,000+. Hilgart further added that he felt even if the lot sizes were inconsistent the prices of the homes would be consistent with the existing homes and did not feel there were any issues. Oragsten asked who owned the existing fence and Tazelaar advised the owners are out of town, but also stated she was willing to remove her chain link fence if necessary. Regarding the proposed 17 ft. setback, Holthaus thought it was 17 H. to the sidewalk. Grittman stated they were not including that sidewalk with the ROW, the engineer was adding the sidewalk, and they should also look at the end unit again. Regarding the smaller lot sizes, Oragsten f"elt that having a homeowners association would offset the lot size, making it a much better project versus homes not being maintained. He f"eltthis would be a good tradeoff. Dragsten also felt having the front of homes on Broadway would be more attractive than the backs of homes and driveways, preferring the landscaping be toward the existing homes. He also noted the 3 different elevations presented to vary the homes. . Carlson brought up the possibility ofre-zoning to R-2 at Willow St. down to Otter Creek. This parcel faces Broadway and all of the other properties on Broadway are in an R-2 zone. Regarding density, due to the length of the site, and if they were to apply this in the older part of town the developer would be allowed between 5 and 6 units, not 3. Agrees that properties to the north are 12 acre lots but that is not required by the City in the old part of town. He felt 3 units on this site was not realistic, 5 or 6 would be 1110re appropriate on that size parcel. Carlson also commented on setbacks to Broadway and that he felt having the -6- Planning Comm ission Minutes - 03/04/03 . homes closer to Broadway would give the tendency to open thc backsides, which should be favorahle to properties to the north as this adds more huffer and open space. Holthaus noted that was the consensus of staff as well. Carlson added that he didn't feel a sidewalk would make sense to put in ifit was not going to lead anywhere, and asked Ilolthaus ifhe could eliminate the last lot next to Otter Creek. Holthaus stated that originally he had proposed a 12 unit townhouse development and he would need 8 units to make it financially fcasible. He addcd that the cost flJr tcaring down the existing building, along with the proposed development would push the costs of the lots up to $45,000, which is not feasihle. lIe was open to reducing to 7 units, but could not do this without the City's financial help. Hc noted that he is not asking for any financial help such as TIF in putting in the 8 lots and hc is not leaving the site empty. Carlson asked Grittman about the 8th unit and setbacks and Grittman statcd the code requircs 20 ft., the measured dimcnsion shows 17 ft. to the sidcwa1k and it would need to hc worked out with the Engincer. He also stated that if this was a PUD it would then allow somc flexibility. They discussed including a homeowners association and Patch noted that the City can help with enf()rccment and bill the homcowner if necessary. Patch noted that perhaps thcre were other issues that could be included in the association agreement such as exteriors, roofing, etc., for acsthetic purposes. Patch noted that covenants could be established to include the City whcre they could not be altered without City approval. Holthaus concurred. . Stumpf added that he thought thcre would be 6 or 7 units, not 8. Holthaus again noted that previously hc had proposed 12 unit townhomes, but he also noted that if these units werc avcraged out they do mcet the 7500 sq. ft. requirement. Stumpf asked ifthcrc were any variances being requestcd and Grittman stated only in regard to setback requircmcnts with thc cdge of the home on the corner lot to Otter Crcek. Carlson noted the idea is to move them closer to Broadway having more opcn space in the back. Stumpf liked the idea of moving thc units closer to Broadway. Dragsten asked if Holthaus was familiar with the conditions stated in the staff report and he stated he was. Oragsten also clarified that the Planning Commission does not look at economic concerns and wanted the public aware that they are not taking that into consideration. It was also clarified that moving the units forward 15 feet also would move the drives up by 15 feet. Grittman advised that a landscaping plan was not required at this time, hut at development stage they would hold another public hearing. The timing of this depends on when the applicant comes back with plans. Again, he noted this was strictly concept stage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR TilE IIOljTHAUS PUD, WITH COMMENTS NOTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT Tln~ PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF TIll.: CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CONTINGENT ON TIlE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . a. Provision of detailed landscape plan, including placement of a fence or other huffer as -7~ Planning COlllmission Minutes - 03/04/03 . determined by applicant and staff, on the north side of site. b. Provide building finish color and roof line detail for every structure c. Revise site plan showing setbacks as identifIed in this report and show revisions to drive allowing garbage truck turnaround area. d. Homeowners association approved by staff. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development approval for a mixed use development including residential. commercial and industrial. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report regarding the concept plan for a mixed use development including residential, commercial and industrial. He noted that this property had been previously reviewed several years ago, but at that time there were annexation issues the project did not move forward. Grittman advised that land use patterns had been discussed and revised since then. . StatT is relatively comfortable with the design of housing unit types. In their previous project they had looked at some small lot single family units and felt that would be a possibility as pat1 of the mix, creating a transition between R-l housing and some of the attached housing. Grittman advised that the City Engineer had reviewed the plan as well and requested the access width to be adjusted, and also advised that the Parks Commission had reviewed this proposal several years ago suggesting park land for potential ball fIelds. He advised of a substantial arca to thc south that may be a good use for that area, however thcy need to be aware that if the Parks Commission were looking at lighted fields this may not be compatible. Grittman noted some minor comments regarding layout and that the mix between industrial and commercial would need to be considered. Staffrecommends a higher amount of dctachcd housing vcrsus the number of attached units, but feels that thc concept plan is ready to proceed to preliminary plat. . Stumpf asked about future dcvelopmcnt in thc southcast corncr of the site but it was advised that this propcrty was not owned by the applicant, although they have provided possible access to that property. Fred Patch advised of the IDes recommendation at their meeting earlier that day which was to incrcase thc indllstrialland to 65 acres and reduce the commercial land to 5 acres. Dragstcn asked for their rationale and Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director, provided the reasoning by the IDe. Orittman noted that if MnDOT providcd access to the City it would be in that location and he wasn't sure how much tlexibility the City would then have. Koropchak advised that Jeff (YNeill had been present at the IDC's meeting and she was speaking on his behalC as well as the IDe. She stated -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . that this group is a lobbying group on behalf of the City and also that they are trying to improve communication with the Planning Commission and City Council. The recommendation by the IDC was based on the 70 acres that were originally planned for industrial land use and the IDC's desire to maximize the City's industrial land. Koropchak advised of the second recommendation by the] DC which was to scale back the number of townhouses and to buffer between the neighborhood from industrial to residential. She added that possibly an 8 foot berm could be added, as well as a setting similar to a park on the residential side. She believed that this came from several of the industrial property owners and their comments in regard to issues with residential placed next to industrial. Carlson stated that there would be a road dividing this area, but Koropchak statcd that they preferred the 8 f()ot berm, and Dragsten concurred. Dragsten questioned what would be done with the park land and Grittman stated the original idea was to have a mix of finished space along the pathway with some natural grass areas as wcll, and a mix of wooded and opcn linear park space. The land would be conducive to many possibilities. Carlson asked about the amount of ponding and would it be lined. Grittman statcd that thcrc has probably not been a lot of hydrology done at this time. . Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development Inc., provided reviscd drawings as well as what was previously presented in 1998. He discussed the City's comp plan and thc constraints that were placed on the development in regard to bufTering, as well as its location on Highway 25. He noted they met with staff for input regarding the rcviscd comp plan. Thc residential consists of 370 units with single Llmily lots approximatcly 83 to 88 fcct in width, which he feels is necessary to construct 3 car garages and sti II meet the 10 foot sideyard setback requirement. The 68 quad units consist of 4 units each with 4 different styles which can be combined, depcnding on dcsirc ofthc buyer. I-Ie added that they are currently building thcsc units in Rogcrs and have received positive feedback. They can also include a sun porch or patio and they are a slab on grade typc of design, one level living geared toward the elderly. The townhome units on the norther part ofthc dcvclopment are 2 story, 2 car tuck under garages with 1600 sq. ft. fInished. The residential componcnt containing morc townhomes is indicative of the market, although he does understand staff's dcsirc for more detached units. . Graser stated that regarding the acreage of commcrcial and industrial land he feels that 10 years out there will be changes and perhaps could be twicc the population from what is there today. He didn't understand why the City would want to put industrial on that corncr. I Ie stated the whole corridor from Chclsea to Ilighway 25 would be buf1ered. They have proposed a frontage road all the way to School Boulevard as well. Regarding buttering and screcning, hc will do what hc can to make it a pleasant transition. Hc statcd thc ponds that have been pre-designed would handle run off. Ponds in residential area are for residential only. He explained the park system and the access of pathways through thc dcvelopmcnt as well. He also noted staffs input on the potential for a ballfIeld and notcd whcrc thcy intcnded to placc it, although he was not sure about lighting as previously mcntioned. The -9- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . trail section goes through the entire development and is proposed to end at the commercial corner. There will also be a trail or sidewalk along the collector street. Graser stated he had received staffs comments and addressed the cuI de sac conccrn, adding that he would like to keep one of them. He can shorten it to meet standards but to conncct the other two would be a challenge. Graser added that the desire for cui de sacs is by homeowners. He then pointed out a low area on the parcel where they would place the pond and park systems designed on each side. He added that this grade change would give them the opportunity to make some of the homes walkouts. It was noted that the number of units had been reduced to approximately 370 from the initial 570 units and that the density is basically identical overall at 2.5 units per acre. They discussed increasing the industrial land and Graser advised that he would be required to file for an amendment to the comp plan, further advising that his plan was taken directly from the City's comp plan. They also discussed the number of cuI de sacs and had they considered possihle tear drops, not actually continuing all the way around. Graser he was not in favor of that due to there being such a large area of blacktop, but he would consider it if he could have center islands, adding that with large masses of blacktop it is difficult to organize traffic. They also discussed center islands being a benefit and Graser agreed, although there then becomes a maintenance issue. He did state however, that possibly center islands with trees and pavers would work, but the landscaping would have to be the responsibility of an association and would also need to be sprinklered. . Grittman added that they have discussed this at staff level and have developed a standard for center islands, the idea would be to address maintenance issues, but they have been working on a standard to accommodate center islands. He stated they have heen using them internally for new developments. Dragsten added that in trying to get higher quality housing, cui de sacs are preferable. Grittman stated they are working with the street dept. on this matter to create a design they are comfortable with as well. Stumpf asked if this was something that could be incorporated in this development and agrees with staff that there seems to be an overabundance of cuI de sacs. Graser stated that if he needed to move them or loop them, he would have to re-work the plan, doesn't feel connecting them would be the answer. . Stumpf also questioned the I DC recommendation for an 8 ft. berm and did Graser feel they could do that. Graser stated that he did not feel he had enough dirt for that. and it is too aggressive, but possibly a combination of berming, plantings, and fencing. He addcd that he did not feel that an 8 ft. berm would be a good solution. Hc did agree with Koropchak that this would be a sensitive issue, noting for them as well as they need to market these homes. He would prefer a mixture. Stumpf statcd hc would like to see something somcwhat aggressive as he has seen residential owners purchasing next to industrial sites and then complain later about buffering. Graser noted that the structures will bc placed to make them more aesthetically pleasing as well. Stumpf added that regarding the rcquest f(H 65 acres f()r industrial he did not feel that the 5 acrcs would be that substantial and felt there arc other -10- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . areas avai lable where they could add 5 acres. Stumpf preferred to keep the 10 acres commercial. Graser stated that they also wanted the 10 acres for commercial as they have potential users for that site. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Roger Bechtold, 8617 Edmonson Ave. NE, stated that his property is adjacent to this parcel and he keeps horses on his site, as well as an alfalhl field that he farms. He questioned if the Planning Commission had any plans f(H his 20 acres. Carlson stated the Planning Commission is not a developer. He then asked if his land would be zoned residential as it is currently agriculture and Grittman noted that in the comp plan the land would be guided for residential, but until it is annexed and requested by him, the land will stay as it is as long as he chooses to keep it that way. A resident at 8817 Hwy 25 questioned the access that MnDOT had approved on Ilwy 25, stating her concern with this and Grittman stated that this would nced to be resolved and negotiated by MnDcrr. She was concerned with how this would impact her entrance/property and it was noted that she would have to wait it out. . The public hearing was then closed. There was further discussion regarding the IDC's request fix the change in acreage and that they did not feel it would serve well unless accesses were to be changed. They agreed with berming and encouraged the applicant to work with staff on a mutual agreement. The applicant was also advised to work with staflto eliminate the number of cui de sacs, specifically in the northeast corner of the site. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD IIILGART TO RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE Of THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE GOLD NUGGET PUD, WITH COMMENTS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WIIlCH INCLUDED REMARKS RELATING TO: · SITE/LOT DESIGN ENHANCED LAND LJSE TRANSITION BUFFERING CIRCULATION/ACCESS INCLUDING A REDUCTION IN TilE NUMBER OF CUL- DE- SACS ADJUST !lOUSING UNIT MIX IN A MANNER ESTAl3LISIIING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING AS THE PREDOMINANT LAND USE. MOTION RASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. MOTION CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF A PARK PLAN BY THE PARKS COMMISSION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE M(JflON. There was further discussion stating it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to keep the industrial and commercial sites as noted in the comp plan and that densely planted berming may be more beneficial. . - 11- . . . Planning COIlllll ission Minutes - 03/04/03 THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED LJNANTMOUSL Y. 9. Puhl ic HeariI1l.! - Consideration of amendments to the district houndary map identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. (Open public hearing and continue to the April meeting for review by full membership of the Planning Commission). Vice Chair Carlson noted that it was requested that this item be continued at the April meeting due to a desire to have the full complement of the Planning Commission present. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing and continued it to the April meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PURLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP IDENTIFIED IN TIlE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO TIlE APRIL 1,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MUT'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 10. Consideration of setting special meeting date to conduct interviews for the vacant position on the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Carlson asked the commission members to decide on a date to conduct interviews for the vacant planning commission position. I Ie advised that he had spoken to Chair Frie who would he hack in town on March 8. It was the consensus of the members to call for a specialmecting on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the interviews. II. Consideration of providing input on goals and proiects for the City. This suhiect to be discussed at the special Planning Commission meeting whcn interviews are heing conducted. It was advised that goals and projects would be discussed at the special meeting to held March 11,2003. 12. Hillside Farms - update by Grittman. Stcvc Grittman advised that he had spoken to Jeff O'Neill previously regarding the single family portion of this proposed development south of the Monte Club. lIe reminded the Planning Commission that this proposal is similar to what had been presented hy a prior devcloper. Grittman stated that the area is guided for R-I A on the land use plan, but the plat was pursucd as an R-I development. Originally when approvcd it was donc so under R-I standards and the new standards were brought in after that. Staff's position is that the preliminary plat is approved but they are encouraging the developer to carry f()rward with R- I A standards. The only issue posing di11iculty would be the percentage of garage frontage, -12- Plann ing Cotnm ission Minutes - 03/04/03 . noting they are proposing 3 stall garages. Hilgart concurred and wanted to hold them to the new standards. Developer had originally discussed larger, higher quality homes. Carlson asked if there were any comments previously that this be developed with the next 40 acres but it was advised that nothing official had heen statcd at this time. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to proceed with R-I A standards. Patch asked what would tie the developer to comply with R- I A standards on R-l lots and Grittman advised that this would bc a requirement of them by City Council and incorporated in their developer's agreement. Grittman noted they were reluetant, but receptive. If they did not agree with this, it would need to come back to the Planning Commission, per Patch. The applicants were concerned with several of their lots being of less square footage, not counting basements, but the remainder of thc lots were not an issuc and they were looking for flexibility on those few lots. Grittman stated they have room to build the 2000 sq. ft. homes, most will be 2 story, and the only thing they will not be able to eomply with is a percentage of garage lfontage on somc of the units as they do not havc the width to comply. . Hilgart asked about the chart of standards provided by Patch regarding square footages and sty les of homes, particularly the requirement for 1400 sq. ft. rcqui remcnt and asked if therc were diffcrent standards depending on the style of housing. Patch advised that ramblers arc separate from that and advised that this will need to be looked at. Grittman stated that the 1400 sq. ft. requircment pertained to all districts, stating the minimums in thc R-I A would be a modified 2 story, 1400 sq. ft. on the first floor. Dragsten asked about the joint parking issue previously noted by Patch regarding the Krutzig development, that it should be required by CUP and the nced to hold a public hearing at that time. He would like staff to bring something forward to the Planning Commission to consider at the next meeting. Stumpf asked about the post office access off of Locust Street now closed off, stating he understood that it would remain after Broadway was completed. Carlson stated he thought that it was only during thc construction phase. Oragsten advised that it did not come through the Planning Commission. Patch added that the City does not have rights to that property as it is privately owncd. 13. Adiourn ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDF':D THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOlJSL Y. . cm'- -13-