Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-01-2003 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - April 1, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: S tafT: Dick Fric, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman 1 . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. On behalf of the City Council and Planning Commission, Chair Frie welcomed Dave Rietveld to the Planning Commission. Chair Fric also thanked Vice Chair Carlson for chairing the March 4, 2003 meeting. 2. Approval of the minutes of the re!!ular Planning Commission meeting held March 4.2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO APPROVE 'filE MINUTES OF THE MARCI-( 4, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGS'fEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIR FRYE AND DA VE RIETVELD ABSTAINING. .... -) . Consideration of adding items to the agenda. JelT O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised of a request for the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing clarifying new residential sethack standards. This was placed as item lOon the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearinu - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit f()r concept staue planned unit develoJ)ll1ent to construct office/retail buildin!! and parking. Applicant: Mike Cvr/MLC Building & RemodelirH.'. and Liberiv Savings Bank Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report and summarized the appl icant' s request for concept stage approval for a proposed planned unit development to construct olTice/retail and parking. The parcel would be split and platted into two buildahle lots for a commercial huilding on each site, noting the site is adjacent to the Liberty Savings l3ank and is zoned PZM which allows a potential mix of land lIses, primarily commercial. Grittman advised that a conditional use permit would be required f(H the types of uses the -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 . applicant is proposing, the PUD process which provides the review for this project. He also noted that perimeter setbacks would be the same as the zoning district within which the development would be located if it were in a standard zone. For this project, the applicable zoning district would be B-4, general business, and this district permits zero setbacks. An internal parking lot is proposed with two driveways located off of Hart Blvd. Total square footage of the project is approx. 15,700 with 75 parking spaces, consistent with the zoning ordinance and meeting all zoning requirements. Grittman provided a concept drawing of the buildings as well and recommended that building materials be brick, stone, decorative block, and stucco, without the use of lapped siding. He added that staff also suggested that the preliminary plat not be addressed at this time, but rather with the development phase. O'Neill questioned what aspects of the site might be superior in design to allow a PUD and Grittman stated the ability to combine the parking lot for shared access/drives, further stating that two separate lots provide good access. Grittman advised that city code does not address architecture, but a PUD would give the city the opportunity to address it. . They discussed access off Hart Blvd. with two driveways serving both sites off Liberty Lane, and street names would have to finalized. referring to I lart Blvd. and Liberty Lane being one and the same and would be addressed as part of the plat. Grittman also commented that driveway locations must be coordinated with any potential development across the street to the west and the City Engineer would address this at the next phase. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. Dragsten felt this would be a nice project that would fit well at that location. Mike Cyr. MLC Building and Remodeling, advised that he preferred to have the option of two parcels fl1r possible future development. Cyr clarified there would be an overriding agreement for shared parking and that this layout seems to be the best use of the property, also allowing for pond retention in the corner. There were concerns with the B-4 zoning intent and zero setbacks and Frie recalled that Liberty Bank was required to meet stricter setback requirements and questioned if this zoning was to circumvent that. Grittman stated that a PZM district docs not state setbacks. and stafT felt 8-4 would be the zoning district used to accommodate the uses proposed. Frie asked if this was also available to Liberty Bank and Grittman stated he did not recall them requiring a CUP. Frie again stated he recalled they were more demanding with setbacks t()r the bank and wanted to make sure that zoning was not being changed to accommodate the applicant. . Grittman added that statThad reviewed the project by looking at the uses proposed, which are allowed in the PZM, and then looked into the commercial district to see which district would apply if these uses were proposed, stating that is the way a PZM district works. He -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 . added that this is consistent with the PZM structure, and the BA district states zero setbacks, which the PZM follows. Cyr advised that he is not building to the lot lines and has the buildings set back. There was further discussion that with zero setbacks, they could build to the lot lines and have no landscaping, which Carlson felt was not conforming with the site. Grittman stated it was possible to move the building to the center and push parking to within 5 feet of the lot line, but he did not feel that would gain them any landscaping and he was not sure that additional setbacks accomplishes the goal of increased green space. Grittman further added that with a PUD the City could ask for increased landscaping. O'Neill advised that he could check the records rcgarding the Liberty Bank site, adding that perhaps they used two different setbacks for that site and possibly applied the B-2 requirements. Grittman again advised how the PZM district works, noting the difIiculty with the PZM district but that it was written intentionally that way, and suggested that the Planning Commission review this further by verifying that the developer complies with what the City feels should be the intent of that district. . There was further discussion on relating this plat with the Liberty Bank plat in regard to sctbacks and proper zoning. It was advised that the city designated PZM zoning for this area. Frie recalled this issuc had been discussed previously as to what this area should be zoncd and it was determined to zone rZM to allow flexible zoning. Frie asked Carlson if hc was receptive to having starf come back with setback information on adjacent properties and Carlson agreed. Grittman advised that this would apply to the east side of Co Rd 39 as well. Cyr advised that they had already considered brick or stone and wains coat, with stucco on the balance of the building for building materials. P'rie then questioned if there was a staff membcr involved with this project. and ifso, would there be a conflict of interest if that person was involved in decision making. Cyr advised that if there was stalTinvolved it would strictly be as investors. O'Neill assured that if any staff person was involved, they would have no intluenee or input on this proposal. Frie noted that he had reccivcd phone calls in this regard. Decision 1: Concept Stage PUD for Liberty Park A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD FOR A TWO~BUILDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS UBERTY PARK, WrrH THE FINDING THAT THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITI I TIlE PZM ZONING AND WITH THE CONDITION THA'r THE APPI ,I CANT COORDINATE THE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WIT'H OTHER NEARBY DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE pun PLANS INCLUDE HUILDING MATERIALS, LANDSCAPING AND LlGlrrING PLANS, AND OTHER STANDARD PUD SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LIBERTY PARK, DIRECTING STAFF '1'0 REVIEW REQUIRED BUILDING MATERIALS, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS, AND UTILITY PLANS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Continued Public llcaring - Consideration of amendments to the district boundary map identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: Citv of Montieello, Steve Grittman provided the staff repOli advising of previous changes in the layout of the downtown district map. lIe added that the Planning Commission was asked to consider additional changes to the map with regard to the former Marquette Bank site as well as the former Library site. He stated all the developments have been consistent but do not necessarily match up with the map and stafI would like to bring it into consistency. Changes proposed include changing the former Library site from Civic uses to "Walnut Street District", and change the former Marquette Bank site from "Walnut Street" to "Civic lJse District". The 'fowne Center site would also be ehanged from "Civic Use District" to "Walnut Street District". Chair frie opened the publie hearing and hearing no response, the publie hearing was elosed, There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION DIS'fRJCT BOUNDARY MAP. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOT'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7, Consideration of a request of Ilome Depot to allow a pvIon sign in excess of the zoning req uirements. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report regarding Home Depot's sign proposal. lIe stated that the Planning Commission had reviewcd this proposal at the original PUD approval, but reserved discussion on the free standing sign proposal for further analysis from Ilomc Depot and staff. Home Depot is proposing a 60 ft. sign versus the initial 80 ft. sign, stating that Ilomc Depot had determined 60 ft. would accommodate their interests, Grittman advised that thc Planning Commission would need to use some type of PUD rationale to approve a sign of this magnitude, stating they should make a finding for how this proposal would benefit the city from a zoning standpoint. Grittman stated they specifically stayed away from a variance approach as the findings for hardship are very difficult regarding signs. StafT suggested that a PU D tradc off might be some way of exchanging some other sign limitations on that site for a taller free standing sign, possibly by reducing other signagc, although it was noted that the other proposed signs wcre in compliance. Grittman -4- Planning Commission Minutes ~ 04/01/03 . advised that the other option would be to amend the ordinance, but that they would have to establish requirements that were not in effect for previous applicants, and felt that maintaining the regulations would he best, recommending the Planning Commission look at it from a PUD standpoint instead. Grittman further noted that the request is for a 60 ft. high pylon sign, 160 sq. ft. in width for both Horne Depot and tenant, stating that this is almost double the size that the city would typically allow with a pylon sign. The largest pylon allowed there would be 200 sq. f1. Rietveld stated that he had looked at 4 to 5 Horne Depot signs in the area and found most others were not as high as what the applicant is requesting and asked Jennifer MaxwelL Site Development Coordinator with Greenberg Farrow, what would happen if only a 38 ft. sign was allowed. Maxwell stated that giyen the f~ict that Monticello is not a destination for retail, there is no visibility at the location from 1-94 or lIwy 25, and the site is located one road removed from Hwy. 25, they needed another large retailer to locate with them, as well as the need for a taller sign to get visibility. Frie asked if there was a comparable to this signage at another Home Depot site and Maxwell stated there was at their location in Albert Lea, and this sign is actually 100 ft. tall, as that is also not a retail site. . foric asked if uniqueness would be ajustification ttlr allowing the sign to be taller than the ordinance allows, stating he had heard from seyeral residents that they felt this was a unique site and questioned if they could justify a uniqueness in the size of the site. He also reminded them that the Mielke sign was allowed at 57' versus the 32' allowable. Grittman stated that this should be stated in their findings for approval. but also need to state what the tradeofTs would be. Frie also stated that they have discussed in the past that the city would I ike to see the Hwy 25 corridor as retail. Stumpf was concerned with future developments further down Hwy 25 requesting taller signs and questioned where to draw the line. Grittman concurred. He stated visibility from the freeway is a poor justification for approval and the Planning Commission should use some aspect for this site or development that makes it unique. . It was further discussed that they need to find the fairest and easiest way to apply sign regulations. O'Neill advised that the Mielke and Peterson projects were hoth PUDs and certain aspects of these sites were considered when determining signage. He further stated that in speaking with Home Depot. they were willing to have monument signs advertising other businesses in that area as well, the taller sign would be Horne Depot and Retail B. They will work with stafT on attractive low level monuments for visibility along Chelsea Road as well. They do not anticipate a high pylon sign for the fuel center, and they would agree to a lower monument if they were approved for a 60 ft. pylon. It was also noted that 22 ft. is the standard height for monuments and Home Depot is proposing 17 ft.. Maxwell asked that the Planning Commission look at flexibility, adding that if they are able to have a higher pylon and added landscaping, upgraded architectural elevations, and trees planted in hont of the store, she felt that within the f1exibility of the pun zoning this could be looked at as justification. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 . O'Neill felt that possibly because of the magnitude of the site, they could justify the higher pylon. This also would deter smaller sites further down Hwy. 25 from applying for taller signs. Stumpf asked if under a PUD would they havc thc authority to take these on a case by casc basis and asked Carlson for his reasoning for looking at the cntire ordinancc. Carlson felt thc sign ordinance needed to be strengthened and doesn't feel the Planning Commission should hc in a situation to have to consider higher sign requests. He felt that there may be morc inquiry on signage if this one was approved. Fric agrecd that each issue should be looked at individually and based on the size ofthc sitc, would givc somc typc of justification. Dragstcn concurrcd. Hilgart askcd if whether the sign is approved or not would it determine whether llome Depot would come to Monticello and Maxwell said there were two concerns with Home Dcpot coming to Monticello, one heing the need for another large retailer and the other being visibility, further stating that their marketing tcam was not comfortable with this site. She also stated they have a strong interestcd party as thc other large rctailcr. Frie asked Stumpf ifhe felt the City Council would feel comfortahle reviewing the sign critcria again and he stated yes, and that it had alrcady bccn suggcstcd at City Council level. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL rOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE ZONING ORDINANCI': RI.:GARDING SIGNS. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION AND 'fHE MOTION FAILED. Therc was furthcr discussion by Rietveld that there is a 57 ft. sign in that area already, and because of the size of this site and thc fact that thc sign wi II bc sharcd with anothcr tenant, he /elt it was justifiable. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVID RIETVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A TALLER AND LARGER PYLON SIGN FOR THE HOME DEPOT AND RETAIL B COMPLEX, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE USE OF THE PUD WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO EXCHANGE APPROVAL or THE TALLER SIGN FOR OTHER SIGN RESTRICTIONS TIIA T WILL RESULT IN A SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING MONUMENT SIGNS IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL TENANTS ONL Y. There was further discussion that allowahle sign hcight hc statcd in the motion, as well as thc tradeoff" in cxchangc for allowing highcr sign hcight. RIETVELD AMENDED TIlE MOTION TO STATE MAXIMUM SIGN IIEIGHT TO BE 60 FEET, IN EXCHANGE FOR 17 FOOT MONUMENTS AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. . THEY FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT ANY SIGNAGE ON THE FUTURE PARCEL TO BE MONUMENT ONLY AND THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THAT IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO 1-94 BE CONSIDERED. WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITII ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN -6- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 OPPOSITION. Thcrc was discussion regarding a workshop date to review sign criteria and it was the consensus to hold a public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON '1'0 CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISIT CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS IN RELATION TO HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have stall provide information on current sign ordinance versus amendments to the ordinance at the May meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICI lARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISIT CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS IN RELATION TO HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have staff provide information on current sign ordinance versus amendments to the ordinance at the May meeting. s. Discuss residential design requirements ft)r nlanned unit develonmcnts in thc Original Plat of the Citv of Monticcllo. O'Neill advised that the developer was not prcsent but was interested in feedback from the Planning Commission for a proposed development on W. 3'd Street. He provided a sketch plan but stated it was not necessarily what the applicant is proposing, only some options. lie stated the this developcr has been in contact with the owners of the old St. I Ienry' s church in this regard as well. O'Neill askcd for feedback on how they felt about maintaining the older part of town with traditional 2 stories facing the street, versus more modern town home developments which arc more clustered with parking possibly centralized in the middle. Do they want to rctain the character and charm of the old part of town. O'Ncill stated staff would like to be able to advise clevelopers who come in with proposals on what the city is looking f()r in regard to redcvclopment and would like direction. O'Neill stated there is some design control at this timc, but many ofthe projects may requirc CUP or PUD's. Frie stated that it is time for the community to address town homes versus dctached homes, and maybe the City Council needs to take a stand on traditional standards, stating that he is in favor of traditional, although he does understand it is markct drivcn. O'Neill stated that this developcr stated hc felt the market was for one level homes, but traditionally they arc 2 story in this area. Frie asked if2 story would draw more families with children ft)r growth in the schools. Carlson stated they should possibly look at setbacks as well, as in thc case of the Vine Place developmcnt whcre there is more of a feeling of a neighborhood. -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 Mike Cyr, MLC Building, addressed the Planning Commission and advised that he felt any idea ofa traditional style in Monticello is a myth. O'Neill stated the point is that we have a grid systcm that is traditional and do we want to maintain that, but maybc this has bcen lost already. He also questioned if the city wants to allow one central drive in the middle of a development in the old part of town. Cyr advised that his decision to build that style was done with research and buycrs of his properties not wanting lawns. There was discussion that they would like to see a sense of community, but not be rigid with standards, and to work with the developments as they come in. Carlson also offered a rccommendation on the sketch plan provided. 9. Considcration of calling for a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment that establishes a ratio of single fllmilv to two familv development in developing areas. O'Neill advised that this was initially brought up at City Council level, asking the Planning Commission to do some homework on pattcrns of developmcnt in the low density residential dcvelopments. Those areas arc starting to ripcn for development and are nlixed uscs of townhomes and single f~lmily detached. The mix is moving toward more aUachcd townhome dcvelopments and staff has had input from the school district questioning if we are developing too many townhomes. O'Neill also stated they've had input that they arc getting 3 units per acre or less and nice townhomes. O'Neill provided a lnap showing the potential future developments as well as a table showing ratio of attached versus detached. Thcrc appears to be a correlation between the pricc ofIand as a f~lctor in the number of townhomcs. O'Neill stated the main question is would thcy like staff to look at standards for ratios of detachcd and attachcd housing. Grittman advised of a possible ratio to bc applied such as for cvery 2 singlc family there bc 1 attached townhome, giving a mix of uses. O'Neill advised of the Gold Nugget project moving in that direction, which staff directed thcm to do. Grittman advised that the 3 units pcr acre is used as a guideline for low dcnsity but it is not in the comp plan. Frie felt if they just complied with the comp plan thc way it is written this would not be an issue. Grittman clarified thcy used the 3 units per acre rationalc prior to thc comp plan. What staff is suggesting is that they supplement interpretation of dcnsity ft)r interpretation of unit style, advising that in the comp plan as an amcndmcnt, there is the statement for predominantly single Jamily dctached. Staff is hoping for additional language in thc comp plan to guide staff when dcvelopers come in. There was discussion on changing the density lowcr than 3 units per acrc and Grittman stated it would be unique to do that and would cnd up re-educating all developers. What they are suggesting is redefining what housing they can develop in a low density area. O'Neill advised of the proposal on the Hermes property stating thcsc will be rich variety, all upper-cnd homes. This may be a dilemma as they would not meet the 2 to I ratio, but staff -s- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 likes the proposed development and asked if there could be leeway in certain types of development. Staff would like to give developers a target ratio and if they would like to have more density, they would have to justify. Frie felt a publie hearing would be in order. Dragsten didn't want to put rcstrietions on developments, noting that it has been stagnant and feels it is market driven, but worthwhile to look at and would like to see what other communities are doing. Grittman advised the 2 to 1 ratio is used in other communities, but there are also cities requiring far less units as well and it also depends on site size. Rietveld stated his Concern with the number oftownhomes as well and he agreed that they should give stafT direetion and put together a plan that staff can work with. Grittman clarified the reasoning for having mixed development was that if they are predominantly single family detaehed they hold the value of the attached homes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE HOUSINU DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR 'fHE CITY IN AREAS GUIDED FOR LOW DENSITY AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN REFINED DENSrry AND HOUSING TYPE STANDARDS IN LOW DENSITY AREAS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED n IE MOTION. MOnON CARRIED UNANIMOlJSL Y. 10. Clarifying setback standards in the R-l A zoninQ district. O'Neill advised that in reviewing ordinance amendments a few months ago it was found that there were areas that were not clear regarding setback standards in the R-I A zoning district. This is a housekeeping item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC I IEARING TO REVIEW SETBACK STANDARDS FOR CLARIFICATION AND POSSIBLE MINOR AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS CLARIFYING SQUARE fOOTAGE . - REQUIREMENTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 I. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING AT 8: 15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. -9-