Planning Commission Minutes 05-06-2003
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/06/03
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MO]';TICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - May 6, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Memlx'rs Present:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. David Rietveld
and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf
Staff:
Jeff ODNeilL Fred Patch. and Stew Grittman
I. Call to order.
'l
.,
-) .
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum.
{\pprovaL..of the mjnutes of the reuular PlanniJlg Com!)1ission n.1eeting h~.!s1 April 1.)003.
A MOTION WAS MADI:: BY LLOYD HILGART TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF
THE APRIL 1. 2003 MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Considel~(ltion of aqsling item~ to the auenda.
There \vere no items added however. Chair hie noted that staff was to provide current sign
ordinance inl(wmation. hut due to the length of the agenda it should be provided at the June
meeting.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Publi<;.Hearing :..Consid_~_ration of a request for an interim use permit allO\ving a public
school use in theL-I District. Applicant: Monticel!o Public Schools
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report regarding the schoo)" s application for
an interim use permit for the Turning Point Alternative Learning Program. Grittman
provided a brief background as well. It was noted that the use has fit fell with the site to
date. and the last discussion they had was for consideration of a more permanent use. The
Planning Commission believed that a temporary use was more appropriate for the site and
Grittman advised that staff recommends continuation for a 3 year extension.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Benedetto. School SupL 19397 _1801h SL Big
Lake. advised that they were again asking for an interim use permit to continue at that site.
h was advised that they currently have 45 at-risk students. ages 16 to 21. They believe they
have been good neighbors and have put a lot into the structure and would like to stay. They
stated they have continued to look around for other possible sites. but the cost per month to
occupy this building is a good bargain for the School District. '['he cost of the facility is paid
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
.
1()J" by a levy t~)J" the School District. \\hich they noted would increase iCthey were to ha\e to
move.
Benedetto introduced Lynn Haldy. an employee at ALP and Frie questioned her if there had
been any reaction tl.om adjoining residents/neighbors to them. positive or negative. Haldy
staled there had been a concern several years ago \\'ith some of the students smoking near the
lumhar yard. and at that time they discussed the matter with their students and it has been
taken care of. She advised that the students care about their school as \vell and there have
been no further incidents. She added that the comments she hears are comments in support
of the school. Haldy advised that these students are li'om grades 9 to 12. generally evened
out. although this year there are a few more 10111 grade students.
Frie asked staff if there \vere any comments and O'Neill advised that he has not heard any
complaints or comments. Patch stated that as far as any feedback hom the public. it has
only been favorable and positive. The public hearing was then closed.
There was further discussion regarding enrollment and whether it fluctuated or stayed
consistent. It \vas advised that the numbers arc usually steady. thcy may' drop to about 3R at
the low point but usually stay steady between 40 to 45 students. It was also noted that they
are maxed out at this site at 45 students. Haldy stated they do not desire to gn)\\' any larger
as their strength is with this size group. and works well for them and their mission.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM. BASED
ON A FINDING THAT T1-Il~ USE HAS RAISED NO CONCERNS FOR SURROUNDING
INDUSTRIAL USES. FOR A PERIOD UF T\VO YEARS. AND WITI--I CONDITIONS OF
'["HE PREVIOUS PERMIT AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. DAVE REITVELD
SECOND THE MOTION.
Frie Curther commented that his request f()r two years versus three was due to concerns with
the closing of the elementary school. He also advised that he had spoken to Benedetto about
this as well. Therc was further discussion among the members whether they preferred two
three years. The consensus was that they were comf0l1abIe with three years. Heldy added
that 3 years would be better as it gives them more flexibility to look for another site as well.
Benedetto stated he did talk with Frie regarding a possible 2 year permit. but they do not
want to look at Eastview as they would probably reoccupy that building in 2004.
Therefore. Frie and Reitveld recinded their motions.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM.
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE HAS RAISED NO CONCERNS FOR
SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL USES. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. AND .
WITH CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS PERMIT AS FOLLOWS:
:2
.
.
.
Planning COll1ll1ission fvlinutes - 05/06/03
1.
A SIIORT TERI\I TERMI1'\A TION DAlE IS EST M1L1SHED IN ORDER TO ENSURE
rllAT THE CrrYDS INDUSl'RIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES \\TRE NOT
AFFECTED BY TilE LOCATION OF SCIIOOL F/\CILlTY IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS,
THE BUILDING WAS RUv10DELED ONLY '1'0 TilE EXTENT TIIA T CONVENIENT
RE-USL L3Y OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL USERS WOULD STILL L3E POSSIBLE.
TilE PARKING WAS .JUDGED TO 8E ADEQUATE FOR TI IE SCHOOL USE OF TilE
PROPERT\' .
.,
"
_J.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
6.
Public Hearing -(onsideration o(~~requestl~)r a _~~<~I:i,~~,llce to the real:.'y<~xs-l setbacks to allow
Ct~!!:,:-tLuction of a 2(t x 26' building a~!.dition. Applica!!!~l>_1ichael Renstn2Il}
Steve Grittman. City Planner prO\ided thc staff report advising of the location of this
property where the applicant is asking for a variance for expansion of his home. This would
require a variance for approximately II feet. Grittman stated that variances have a rigorous
sct of criteria and need to find a physical condition that is unique to the property vvhich puts
a hardship on reasonable use of the property. In this case the property is in a reasonable use
already. It is hard to find hardship in accordance with the ordinance. While the lot is
narrow. there is land a\'ailable on the property that would accommodate expansion or the
homc. as a result planning stall cannot find hardship in accordance with thc ordinance.
Chair Frie opencd the public hearing. Michacl Renstrom. 112 Kevin Longley Dr. provided a
picture or the lI'ont of the house. as well as a background of how long hc and his wife haw
li\'ed in Monticello. particularly at this rcsidence and the{d like to stay rcsidents. Renstrom
advised the reason for the addition to thc home is that his wife was diagnoscd with ALS in
February of this year and they anticipate that in the next several years she will be wheelchair
bound. Thc right side of the home \vould be inaccessible for her and she \vould need
bath/bed on grade. They looked at the sides and rear of the house but there \vould be no
access li'om the left side. and an addition to the right side could create a double bungalow.
but would defeat the purpose. Thercfore the decision for a 26 x 26 addition. After they
researched this they found a problem with the tree line \vhich separates his ncighbors house
from his. therefore they compromised with a 20 x 26 addition. utilizing the full 26' of length
between the garage and portion of the house that would be inaccessible to his wife. He
providcd a drawing of the proposed addition. advising the need for a service entrance to the
bath with handicap accessibility. He stated he realizes that health concerns do not constitute
a hardship for variance but he feels he has addresscd that.
Renstrom further added that if he used the average lot size of 96 ft. deep as a basis. he is
already cut down by 1/3 in depth of his lot which he feels is a hardship. Not one side is
equal on all 4 sides. He again pointed out that hc is in the R-2 district. If his house was
placed in the center or ran parallel to the back line it would also be different. Ill' also
suggested when considering their request that they look at what is usable depth for their lot.
72'. which then hc would be cut down at least IS ofthc most common lot size. He felt these
::;
Planning Commission Minutes - 0.5/06/03
\vould constitulc hardship. l-Ie heliews he has provided a need in keeping the tree line. and a
hardship exists \vith lot Sill', house placement. and tree line.
.
Allison Bakken. III Kevin Longley Dr.. addressed the commissioners and stated she has
liwd in this neighhorhood for approx, 6 year and has known Karen Renstrom for a long
time. She further added that due to that fact that she intends to be involved in Karen's care
as conditions worsen. she feels that ,,'here they live in accordance to the Renstrom's. the
addition would be virtually unseen. She would not want to lose good neighbors.
JeffO.NeilL 114 Kevin Longley Dr., west of the Renstrom's. went on record stating no
objection to the rcquest as stated and would not appeal the varianee if approved by the
Planning Commission.
Jerry Crocker. Monticello township, staled he is a fricnd of the Renstrom's and his reason
for addressing the Planning Commission was that his wife has had ALS for over <) years. He
explained his wife.s condition and limitations. and that at some point Karen Renstrom will
have to be on one floor and the rest of the house would not bc accessible to her. therefore the
addcd space \vould be neeessary.
Resident at 108 Kevin Longley Dr.. concurred that the trec line would be kept intact and he
\\ould havc no problem with the addition.
The public hearing was then closed. Dragsten questioned if the applicant had considered
finishing off the garage and putting another one up in front of it. and Renstrom stated that
they had not taken a look at that. further advising that there is a 28 x 14, and 14 x 14 single
car garage attached and the reason for that is that in working with the designcr they were
\\'orking to create an open spacc with \'aulted ceilings. Carlson didn.t feel an expansion onto
the li'ont v./Ould work.
.
Renstrom further advised that the dnming he submitted was close to scale, the front property
line is not actually the eurb. and it is approx. 40 to 45 1'1. Reitveld stated based on the shape
of the lot and the garage. he felt this would constitute a hardship and he didn.t feel there was
any alternative. Carlson asked Renstrom to explain where the trec line exists in accordance
with the lot line and he stated it was right down the lot line but there are trees on both sides
and a fencc on Mr. Ebner's propeI1y. He added that the most highly concentrated trees are
in the area of wherc his house is and when the trees are in bloom there is no way to see his
house from the Ebner.s. Frie clarified that the attitude of the Planning Commission in
estahlishing a variance has nothing to do with definition of hardship. This is in aceordance
with the ordinance. Frie asked the applicant if staff had advised him that thc initial 26' x 10'
addition would not be in compliance. and did they state what design would not encroach on
required standards. Renstrom advised that he had not yet met with staff but had talked with
Jeff O.NeiIL as his neighbor, in their yard. Renstrom further stated that the 26' x 20' was
backed oiT to make it smaller so as not to interfere with the trees. Frie asked if he realized
that what he proposed would not work and he stated no, They fuI1her discussed an option to
move the addition toward the O'Neill residence so that it would be in compliance. however
.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/06/03
Renstrom ach'ised that this would not \\ork due to this being a split level and roof pitch of
4/12 running one way on one side. another direction on the other side.
Brian Stumpf commented that one of his requirements would be that the tree line is kept in
place.
^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REAR Y ARIJ
SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON A FINDlN(3 TIIA T A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN
THAT THE SHALLO\VNESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PREVENTS THE
APPLICANT FROM SATISFYING ORDINANCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7,
~!l_blic I-1earil~g - Consideratio}.1..9f a reque~t f'(Jr devel(jEI11ent stage planned unit_"~ic;,vclopment
allo\vjng 8 single L!!llih units in a proposed R:,~A districl:.)\pplica!.1t: Tom I-lolthau~
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the stafl report regarding the applicant's request for
developmcnt stage PUD. He advised of 8 individual units and the density complies with the
R-2 zoning. the lots are smaller than the R-2A requirements. and therefore the request for a
PUD. They haw looked at the layout several times at Planning Commission level. "Thc
applicant has also provided a landscaping plan for the individual units with a good amount
of landscaping for cach unit. (Jrittman adviscd a requirement of the R-2A district would be
rather extensive landscaping in front and back. as \vell as a bufTering requirement to the
north that adjoins larger lot single family homes. He staled staff is asking that landscaping
be added to the north side. but another option was to shift units closer to Broadway and
enhance the buffer to lhe north side. (jrittman also noted the proecdural requirement that the
applicant needs w'hich is to acquire land and the plan needs to show the sidewalk with
crossing to Pinewood Elementary. Also, the Engineer is still Jinalizing his review. both the
construction 0 f Otter Creek Road and the uti I ities. Adequate turnaround also needs to be
shown and the Engineer is reviewing this as well Grittman added that staff feels the project
meets the R-2A requircments as well as requirements for a PLiO and \vmIld recommend
approval of both with preliminary plat. Dragsten asked how this aligns with the other
existing homes and Grittman stated these may be slightly closer to the road.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg. 1204 Sandy Lane, questioned if the R-2A
zoning had been approved and O'Neill advised that the Planning Commission had approved,
but had not been approved by the City Council and would be taken into consideration.
Solberg wanted to know how the City Council consent agenda was handled and Brian
Stumpf explained thal the Planning Commission holds the puhlic hearing for the City
Council. Solberg also stated he did not like the size of the units, too small and too nlany
units. He feels this doesn't fit \\'ith the existing homes.
Laura Tazelaar. 1124 Sandy Lane, wanted clarification on the landscaping and where the
service road would be placed. (Jrittman stated the plan shows a row of trees as a landscape
hufTer and staff has asked for them to increase the densitv. Shc felt there needs to be a fence
5
Planning Commission Minutes ... 05/06/03
and didn't fcel trees \\ill bc enough. Stumpf statcd that at thc last mecting Mr. Ilolthaus did
not objcct to a fence, noting there is an existing fence there. and I-Iolthaus advised that he is
proposing a solid hedge. lazelaar stated that a hedge could take many years to grow but
I-Iolthaus stated it to be ahout 3 years. Also Tazelaar has a conccrn with thc existing fence if
it stays as it is in poor shape.
Diane Peters, 1120 Sandy Lane. stated her objection is the density for the site. Doesn 't feel
there would be yard space for children, the back will be a lot of driveway which \vould abut
to their property. and therc are no such driveways like that in their neighborhood. Ililgart
asked her what density would she feel is adequate and she stated 3 to 4 houses, further
adding that money should not be a consideration. Tazelaar added that the existing fence is 6
ft. and they would like to see an 8 ft. fence, further stating if it were only trees there wClldd
be a problem with that many homes.
The public hearirlg was then closed. Reitveld advised he had looked at the area and he felt 8
homes with the proposed landscaping and a fence may fi II the area, and he also doesn't fecI
it fits in with the other homes. Carlson asked staff thc status of Otter Creek Road
realignmcnt and O'Neill stated negotiations on acquiring land are in process. details have
not been set. and actual completion of this plat as proposed cannot occur until this is
finalized with City Council. The plat is only viable aftcr that transaction would occur. at this
point it is presumed that the developer would pay the city for the land necessary. Carlson
asked if they were then looking at 6 units versus 8 and O'Neill advised that with the past
council members and engineers. it is presumed that a fair arrangement of terms would be
arranged. further stating that it has always been the intent of the city for that land to stay
with that site and he felt in good faith it was reasonable to proceed with the plat.
Frie asked Holthaus to respond to the concern about land acquisition and thc possibility of
only 6 llnits versus 8. Holthaus advised that right now it is in the City's hands. and Public
Works Director Simola is working with land owner for ROW propcrty and is not sure that
there is a final layout of the road at this time. O'Neill added that the alignment of the road
was thought of long ago to improve the safety of the intersection. and therctore the reason
[or the realignment and not to add additional land as this is a remnant parcel. Dragsten
asked what would happen if he doesn't get the additional land and Holthaus stated he
assumed that this would not be a prohlem. but if it \vere to change then the deal will not
happen. Dragsten also asked about sizes of front porches as stated in the staff report and
Holthaus advised hc had looked at this and doesn't feel it is a problem. Holthaus further
advised that he was unable to obtain information on the required landscaping and this needs
to be defined. He added that if more landscaping is required it needs to be clarified and
more direction given. Grittman stated staff would bc happy to work with applicant on this
and that the R-2A district has specific landscaping requirements. Dragsten advised that he
still felt that this would be a better fit than the convenience store in regard to number of cars
coming in and out of this property, stating this proposal would cause much less traffic.
Carlson asked what the applicant could do to soften the reality of 6 to 8 units lined up with
the same setbacks and was there any way to alter the units. Holthaus stated there are 3 to 4
different fj'ont elevations, different colors, and landscaping is different for each hOllse as
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning COll1ll1ission tvlinutes - 05/06/03
\\cll. He further adyised that he did moye thc units closer to thc road already. I:rie askcd
Griltl11an and Holthaus about preyious comments at the concept stage public hearing and
nO\\ at developmcnt stage regarding square footage and lot sizes of 45', as it was Frie' s
understanding that within that district the proposed projcct would meet standards and
Grittman stated it did mect the standards. Frie further stated that he felt landscaping could
be worked out further with staff.
Brian Stumpf stated that if this project goes through. he felt as a city they should do
eyerything possible to address the concerns of the people who live in this area. and feels
strongly that a fence would probably be necessary. Frie stated to include the fence as \\cll
and Stumpf added that he \vould I ikc to see both a fcnce and the landscaping. There was
further discussion on fence height and it was also noted that the fence is not bcing
maintained. Holthaus stated that the property owner behind his property hacJ erected a fence
right up to his fence and therefore he is unable to maintain it. Holthaus adyised there \\ould
be an association with this development and O'Neill stated that staff docs have this
information.
Decision 1: Development Stage Ptl D for Pine View
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI. OF
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING
TI lAT THE PROPOSED PROJECr OFFERS SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING AND
UpeiRADED FENCING, AND ARCHITECTURAL DI::TAILS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
PRIVATE DRIVE ACCESS FOR Till:: UNITS. MOTION INCLUDES REQUIREMENT
THAT BOTH FENCING AND LANDSCAPING BE INCLUDED. ROD DRACiSTEN
SECONDED THE MO'T'ION. MOTION CARRIED 4 '1'0 I WITH CIIAIR FRIE
ABST AINING.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Pine View
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD JIILGART TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PINE VIEW. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERALL Y MEETS THE SPECIFIC ZONING CRITERIA
FOR THE R-2A DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS LISTED Will-TIN
TIllS REPORT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4
TO 1 WITH CHAIR FRIE ABSTAINING.
It was further stated by frie that there had been previous comments by a resident that there
was felt to be a conflict of interest with Chair Frie regarding this item.
8.
Public I learing - Consideration of a request (qr concept stage pJ,!!1l1ed unit developm.ent and
l2!:~.liln.~ll_ar\~I?.!at approvaL and consideration of a request~o rezone from AQ to R-I A and R-
2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek_Corporation
Steve Grittman, City PlanneL provided the staff report and advised that the Planning
7
Planning COlllll1ission Minutes.~ 0.5/06/03
Commissionl"C\'iewcd this project prcviously when it ineludcd only the north portion \vhere
the attached to\\I1house style homcs arc proposed. It was the dircction of staff and City
Council at that time to reduce the density and since that time the applieant has acquired the
area to the south. R-I A standards apply here due to the wooded land and physical site
amenities. When looking at this proposal sinee the smaller project \vas proposed. the land
use plan directs that the south portion be zoned R-l A and the north portion would be more
appropriately loncd IO\v density. typically R~ I single family. although the city has allowed
R-2 zoning. Cirittman advised that the working definition of low density is 3 units per acre
on gross. 4 units on net. The applicant's have proposed utilizing the 3 and 4 units per acre
over the entire site. and as a result there is a net density of approx 3.01 units per acre: the
calculation factoring the R-I A section of the property. Planning staffs opinion is that the
intent is not to co-combine those two arcas and not to do away with R-l zoning. furthcr
advising that the Planning Commission should look at this site as tvm physical zones such as
R-I and R-] A. Grittman summarized that thc north portion vvould have 40 too many units
on the site to eonlply with the 3 units per acre, although the applicant disputes that
interpretation, He stated the applicant wishes to proceed with developmcnt stage and
preliminary plat. In staffs opinion the land use issue needs to be resolved.
Thc applicant's are looking for PUO approval on the south portion as they are asking for
narrO\ver streets and narrower cross sections which will permit them to save additional trees
in that area. per the applicant. Grittman stated that latc last \\eek the applicant provided a
plan indicating which trees would remain and which would he lost. Their indieation is that
they would save 62% of the trees in the wooded area after development. More detailed tree
preservation is to he provided by the applicant as a requiremcnt of staff. Therefore the
recommendation is to proceed with concept stage and re-zoning, hut hold on the
development stage and preliminary plat until they have a ehance to review and pending
Planning Commission's direction. they will procced. It \vas recommended by Grittman that
the item he continued and table action at this time, He furthcr statcd regarding the structure
of the decisions in the staff report this is a complex project and therefore they have hroken
down thc decisions hetween the north and south portions.
Brian Stumpf questioncd Grittman if on a concept stage PUD. it is common to have a list of
conditions as long as the one provided in the staff report. Grittman stated at concept stage a
list of conditions/suggestions can vary. Concept stage gives the oppommity to get these
items on the tahle to discuss and hring baek at development stage. Since this is a combined
concept and development stage. that list is combined. Frie asked if the applicant was aware
of the 22 conditions for approval of the concept stage, and Grittman stated that they did get a
copy of the report. and they have had a number of conversations with the developer.
Whether they expected to see all of those conditions. he was unsure. Staff felt it was their
obligation to bring these f()rward.
.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. hie asked Mike Gair. representing the applicant. to
present a eompelling case to the Planning Commission and focus on this to convince the
Planning Commission to approve. Gail' stated that the matter of compelling argument is .
subject to definition and that he would present their best thoughts. and due to a long history
8
Planning. Commission I\linutes - 0.5/06/03
.
\\ith this project. hopefully by the end they \vill convince the Planning Commission. Chair
Frie asked Lucinda Gardner. applicant. about her comment in her recent letter to the
Planning Conunission stating she \\as taken aback by comments in the staff report and
would she explain. Gair stated f()J" Gardner that it \vas primarily due to the request to
separate the two parcels. He further stated that the list of conditions could either be reduced
or expanded. depending on the results of this meeting.
Gail' concurred with Grittman's statement that this project could be seen as complex. but
li'om their point of view it is good and simple. Regarding the PUD. the only flexibility they
arc seeking has to do \,vith the 50 1'1. ROW versus a 60 ft. ROW. and only in the wooded
area. If determined that there is little if any value in reduction. they will maintain the 60 ft.
ROW. It is their feeling it is beneficial. Gail' provided a site plan indicating wetlands and
topographic relief. noting the highest portion is in the wooded area. Gair provided the tree
preservation count \\'hich I isted types and numbers of trees. and where they are located on
the site. Their primary' focus is preservation of the \voodland area and protection of
wetlands. lIe also pointed out the road \va) and how it lays out in the site plan for
maintaining larger lot sizes. saving trees. and producing a lot yield that is usable and in
accordance \vith the ordinance.
.
Gail' concurred there had been several meetings previously with staff dating hack to 2000
and advised that all previous comments by staff have been incorporated into this plan.
Regarding Bret WeissD report on \vdlands. they knew approximately where they \vere
located. A decision was made to design an intersection at that location for ROW. cnter the
de\elopment. loop back through de\"Clopment and back out. The subdivision to the \vest
would be connected. Gair stated:; product types indicating 94 row townhomes. noting the
12 ft. road \vidth was an alley and only for trash vehicles and snow plows to pass through.
!-Ie stated a sell ing price of approximately $215.000 to $230.000 and owner/occupied
attached. The second type \vould be single t~lmily. R-2^ standards with 50 ft. lot widths
\USUS the 45 ft. required: the last type is in the southern area and would be R-1 A single
hlmily with larger wooded lots and selling price of approximately $200.000 to $260.000.
He does not feel this project has jumped ahead as stated in the staff report and also advised
that the tree inventory was a pricey ordeal and feels that this developer will do a good job at
preserving the trees.
.
Gail' stated that regarding density. he felt they had a fairly good understanding that the larger
lots would be located to the south and smaller to the north. blending them together. but staff
is asking to separate the 40 acres and he didn't see any particular value to segregate. He
advised there \vas already a mix of homes in the southern 40 acres. Gair further stated that
he felt the density was slightly low. versus high. In regard to the request for a 50 ft ROW.
he pointed out that there is roadway. curb. gutter. sidewalk, and utilities. all within that 50 ft.
He also noted tl1r the Bruggeman proposal they settled for 52 ft. [f they were to have a 60
ft. ROW the buildings would have to be moved back and he felt they would lose an
additional 77 trees. I-fe noted that the intent of the R-I A is to preserve wooded lots and
therefore the reduction in ROW.
9
Planning Comlllission Minutcs - 05/06/03
hie asked (jail' to \york \\ith staff on addrcssing the 22 conditions. due to the length of the
agenda. Gail' advised that conditions 21 and 22 deal with the County. conditions 17 and I R
regarding separation of buildings had been included in re\'ised plans. and condition 19 mects
the standards as well. Parking w'ithin the townhome area. per Bret WeissD concern. prnyides
for a ratio of 1 space per 2 units which is in excess of the 1 per:; requircd by ordinance.
Gail' adyised that 37% of the total units proposed arc to\vnhomes and 63% single family. In
the Wildwood Ridge dewlopmenL he adyised it was 66% townhomes. 44% single j~-l!l1ily.
which is just opposite. Gail' further stated that the proposed Spirit Hills addition is also
similar and this development is generating more single jamily detached than the other t\yO
he noted.
Lucinda Gardncr. Farr Development. advised that regarding the trees, those listed are only
the trees that are 8" and larger. Frie asked Gair to addrcss stormwater and hc advised that
there would be a new stormwater basin which was originally designed to minimize or
eliminate problems with Ditch 33. He also adviscd of more catch basins as well as wetlands.
and that this was all engineered by a professional. Frie asked staff about the ho'lding pond in
the southeast corner of Rolling Woods and was it the intent to hold storm water off the
Hermes property as well as adjacent properties. Grittman stated that was correct. this one
would handle its own. O'Neill clarified that there are possibilities to shift some of the water
from this site to Gillard. ayoiding construction of a stormwater lift station to the north. but
that details need to be explored. He also added that this might have some impact on this site
and Gail' stated that this \\ould be good jl.)!, them as well. O'Neill added that onc of the
reasons the former mayor and himself encouraged inclusion of the southern portion in this
plat was due to affordability.
Stcye Conroy. Attorney representing Scott Walters. an adjacent property owner to the south.
addressed the commission and stated he had spoken to Lucinda (Jardner preyiously. adyising
of a potential issue with a fence and property line discrepancy. adding that the fence has
been in place for approx. 40 years. Mr. Waltcrs may seek annexation at some point. per
Conroy. O'Neill advised that this would be addressed at final plat stage. and from now until
that time they will proceed. Frie asked Gardner if she had appl ied for annexation for the
north portion and it was clarified that the southerly portion is the part that has not been
annexed. not the north portion as stated in the stafT report.
.
.
Roger Mack. Street Dept. Supt., questioned if there would be park dedication and O'Neill
advised that there is a park scarch area that staff has identified and they will be acquiring
park dedication funds from the developcr. He advised that the adjoining subdivision would
provide park, and there are trails in place that will connect. Mack fclt this was a lot of
people with no park. He also discussed street width and due to snow plowing. this could be
a problem. He also asked about parking and it was stated they propose two spaces per unit
per ordinance. Mack stated as a private citizen. hc did not feel that 16.000 sq. ft. lots were
considered large.
Chair hie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the members .
regarding how to address the park situation and Carlson did not feel they should rely on the
10
Planning COl11mission Minutes. 05/06/03
.
neighboring parcel. (irittman stated that the park plan concept is that neighhorhood parks
\\ould be spaced approx. 112 lnile apart. Rolling Woods \vould meet that space requirement.
The park. search area is also meeting that requirement. Frie stated that the park in Rolling
\\'oods is small and does the Parks Commission know that this will not he large enough to
handle hoth. It was advised that the Parks Commission has reviewed the plan. For the short
term. access will he from existing parks. It was further stated that this project would obtain
fees to acquire additional park land. It \\as advised that this development would require 8
acres of raw park land. Gair also noted that trail connection would he added. Carlson asked
Gail' about preserving trees in the front yards and Gail' stated they could. it is almost
impossible but there are ways. He stated that at the next level they would provide
engineering data to show how these wi II be preserved. 'fhere is a management system put in
place for tree preservation. Grittman added that another project that Gair was involved in
had a successful tree preservation plan. Frie added that upgraded housing \vas a goal of the
city and he questioned if this development \vas meeting that referring to the price of the
homes per Gair. Grittman stated he felt it does from a development side with preserving
woodlands. leaving the dollar figure discussion out. Frie was surprised that the homes in the
\\ooded area were only in the $100.000 to $160.000 range. Gail' noted that this number is
conservative. O'Neill clarified that the 1.000 sq. ft.1inished requirement for this zoning
would put the lot average at approx. $61.000. just to meet code. and the homes may be
closer to $160.000 to start.
.
Oragsten asked how the developer would guarantee the size and quality of the homes.
referring to the problems with the 'Nild\\ood R.idge development. It \vas noted that there
\vere prohk'ms with covenants. or the lack of. Lucinda stated she had submitted house plans
and proposed covenants/association documents for this development. Hilgart askL'd about
the pre\.ious zoning of the north pOl1ion heing R-l at 3 units per acre. and now wanting to
a\erage this over the entire 80 acres. going from R-1A to R-2A. Gardner stated that when
they purchased the property to the north it was zoned R -1 A. Through the process of
\\orking with stall' it was determined that in one area. due to Ditch :n. they needed to
remove:; acres for storm water and when they put the costs together several years ago. it was
at that point in time they \vere encouraged to acquire additional property. spreading the 3
units per acre over the entire area. She stated they felt that was the direction given from the
past mayor and staff. O'Neill clarified that they did not necessarily state the entire area to he
3 units per acre, they were just trying to spread the costs out hut not necessarily the density.
Gardner furthcr commented that when the city was look.ing atR-l ^ and R-1A. she had
numerous conversations with O.Neill that they were guiding the n0l1h portion toward R-1A
as it did not have the amenities. O.Neill stated that with every site plan that comes through
they do not state that it would definitely work or not work. Gair further added that in the
staff report it states it has been the city' s standard to use 3 units per acre net and 4 units
gross. and he feels they are not abusing this. Hilgart did not feel it should he spread out over
the entire 80 acres. Grittman further advised that this was the intent to further discuss what
this portion should he zoned. since it is not zoned at this time. He noted thcy were reluctant
to go too far without having this discussion first. Land use types and residential mix is not
the city's oh.iection. it's the density. per Grittman. Hilgart asked that presuming they require
3 units per acre on the north 40 acres. how would they feel as this would give them 110 units
.
II
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 05/06/03
ycrslIs 160 units. Gail' stated that \Vould he something they would definitely need to discuss
to see if it \\ould he viable.
.
O'Neill asked Gair about the stormse\ver lift station and had they figured out a cost. O'Neill
stated that there could be additional savings if this is found to not be neccssary. Fric asked if
the concerns noted in the staff report were those noted in thc conditions of Exhibit Z.
Grittman stated these were general comments/concerns, some are ref1ected in the conditions.
some are design issues. O'Neill clarified that he did have the elevations of the homes on
hand for them to view.
Decision 1: South Portion Rezoning from A-O to R-IA
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING FROM A-O TO R-1 A. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
ZONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. LLOYD IIILGAR'T SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Concept Stage PLJD
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD. BASED ON A FINDING T1IAT TIlE PROPOSED PUD IS .
CONSISTEN'f WITH THE GOALS OF '{HE COMPREIIENSIVI: PLAN, SUBJECT TO
THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED
TlIE MOlION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Development Stage pun
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TI-IE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF TI-IE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Frie asking Grittman if staff was comfortable with the PUD
and Grittman stated yes, with the assumption that the tree preservation was the basis for
allowing a PUD.
THEREFORE ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE TREE
PRESERV ATION AS THE BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF Tl-IE PUD. LLOYD HILGART
AMENDED HIS MOTION TO SECOND AND TI IE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Preliminary Plat
.
12
.
.
.
Planning Commission I\linulcs - 05/06/03
(fNcill advised that the City Enginccr and PlIblic Works Dircctor may want this item tabled
untj I resol ution of thc conditions.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONT'INUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
THE JUNE MEETINLI AND TABLE ACfION. PENDING RESOLVING CONDITIONS
LISTED IN EXI-IIBIT Z AND TI-IE CITY ENGINEER MEETING WITII THE
APPLICANT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision 2: North Portion Re-zone from A-O to R-2A and R-2
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-2A AND R-2. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED IONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE crrvDs
COMPREI IENSIVE PLAN. DA VERIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by IIilgart clarif\ing the 3 units per acrc on the north potiion
only and GrittJ1lan stated the density would bc addressed on the plat and this was regarding
the zoning only.
THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Concept Stage PUD
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONCEP'r STAGE PUD. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
PUO IS CONSISTENT \VITI-I TIlE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Development Stage PlJD - North
A M()TION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING AND TABL.E ANY ACTION. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Preliminary Plat - North
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
I IEARING TO THE: JlJNE MEETING AND TABLE ANY ACTION. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
9.
public I learing - C~gnsideration of pre! ill1inary plat (~pproval of t1~e Otter Creek Crossing
con!~1Jercial subdjvisior~:.__6..m2licant: Otter ~'reek LI ,C
13
Planning COll1ll1ission MinLllC$ - 05/06/03
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and stated their intent to continue. Frie asked John
Chadwick. representing Otter Creek LLC for comlnents. with the intent to come back at the
June meeting. Frie asked if they vvould have lanel acquisition at that time and Chadwick
stated that was their intent. He provided a concept plall including extension of Chelsea
Road. He asked for any comments as they have not heard any concerns specifically.
O'Neill advised that they did not do an in-depth review as they do not have proper land title.
but reels that it \vill he a simple review' and the main issue would be land acquisition and the
developer is moving forward on that. Chadwick also noted that the Engineer is looking at
this as well. Carlson asked for the status of the Chelsea extension and O'Neill advised that
this would be up to Chadwick and he added that with demand. that would be their intent.
Grittman clarified that this would he a PUD request \vith I~ 1 A zoning.
.
A MOTION \VAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE TO TABLE CONSJDERA nON OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST AND CONTINUE TIlE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
JUNE. :2003 MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
10. Public Hf.aring - COI.lsideratio_n of a request for!!concept _~tage planned unit devclopm~Dt in
theJ~-2 District. Applicant: Richard Carls~?l:!
Richard Carlson excused himself from the Planning Commission and was seated in the
audience.
.
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report. 'The applicant submitted a sketch
plan fCJr a three unit detached townhouse project at Vine SL north of the Burlington
Northern railroad. The applicant has asked f(Jr the vacation of the Vine St. ROW which
would provide driveway accesses to the remnant end of Vine St. and extend east and west
access to the garages. Grittman advised that the concept plan showed three 1.350 sq. ft.. one
level ramblers with basements.
Grittman advised that R-2A zoning would be the appropriate zone for this but that would
require the applicant to re-zone and approval to vacate that portion of Vine Street to have
enough room for 3 detached units. Grittman flll1her advised of several issues that staff felt
the Planning Commission should discuss such as lot area. right-of-way vacation. driveway
\vidth (stafl feels] 4 feet is too narrow); driveway layouts as shown on the plan would make
turning movements for residents difficult; rear and side setbacks need to be defined: and the
need for the Planning Commission and City Council to state clear findings to justify the use
ofa PUD.
Grittman further stated that on the positive side. the proposed single family units are the
predominant in this area which gives this plan an advantage. but also added that the
constraints of this site make it difficult to develop.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Chris Shinnick. 6] 2 W. 4th Street. advised of his
.
14
Planning COlllll1ission Minutes -- 05/06/03
.
concerns with density and layout. I Ie felt this \\-as being fi')lTed just to make it work. lie felt
although t]1L're are other town homes in the area. they are somewhat separated. It appears that
this would be an island oftownhomes in the middle of the block and he v,ould like to keep it
blending \vith the neighborhood. He also questioned the proposed square l()()tages and the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. as \vell as a concern with drainage ftJr this site. He
stated that the grade of the RR tracks is higher than the street. He was also concerned with
amount of ROWand the proposcd width of the driveway, questioning if a firc truck could
get to the proposed Tel unit.
Roger Mack. Street Dept. Supt.. pro\'ided a map of city utilities showing a 1 T watermain
running directly underneath the proposed units. as well as the need for a turnaround area.
Dan Blonigen. 405 Vine St.. addressed the commission stating he was opposed to \'acating
Vine Street and questioned the sale of the RR property. He did feel this concept plan would
meet setback requirements. Blonigen also pro\'ided information regarding his property.
which he stated was accurate information. Roger Mack further added that typically
easements arc requircd for utilities on properties.
.
Richard Carlson. 53:2 W. Broadway. applicant. addressed the commission regarding the
concerns noted in the staff report. He stated that he is working with Mike Cyr as his builder
and that the proposed homes \vould be somewhat similar to those that Cyr built nearby. He
stated that initially he came to city staff",ith about 3 or 4 diflerent site plans and the one
provided to the commissioners was the plan preferred by staff. He stated he was a bit
surprised with the concern regarding square footages stating the last time he spoke with staff
he was told that they preferrcd 1.200 sq. ft.. detached units.
Carlson further stated the uniqueness of this property and the requirement of Burlington
Northern for a 50 n. setback. He addressed drainage concern. agreeing with the RR track
elevation. but that this piece of property is very flat and he doesn't anticipate any drainage
problem. He fU11her stated that he is proposing full basements and with exca\'ation. there
should be ample fill. Carlson responded to the watermain location conccrn that Roger Mack
referred to and stated that he had spoken to John Simola, Public Works Director. at least 3
times and never once was there talk of a watermain. He did however. discover this on his
own later. lie advised that one of the reasons for one unit shown in the ROW was actually a
recommendation of city staff.
.
Carlson addressed the concern with driveway width and stated it is a pri\'ate drive. further
stating that currently the extension of Vine St. is unimproved but has a blacktop surface and
is :24 ft. wide. His idea is that it could remain unimproved and appear to be a private dri\'e.
Frie asked Grittman if that was possible and Grittman added that the PU D ordinance calls
for a minimum driveway width of 20 ft. with 2-\vay traffic. Carlson added that he would
prefer to sign it with Oprivate driveO so people are not confused or think it is a through street.
and felt this could be done with a nan'ower drive. He then addressed the concern with fire
trucks accessing the property and stated that the trucks do not exceed 8 ft. so he did not see
an issue \\'ith a proposed 1 (j n. drive. Regarding garbage truck access. Carlson stated that
15
Plilnning COll1mission Minutcs .~. 05/06/03
this would be a private drive and \\ould he acccssed the samc as any othcr private dri\i.' in
thc city. Mr. Blonigen advised that currently the garhagc truck backs onto Vine St. il'om 4111
St. to piek up his garbage and then drives out. Chair Frie asked Carlson if the issue \vith the
\vatennain location would change his plans and Carlson stated he may have to reduce to 2
attached and one single unit or all 3 units attached.
There was discussion on what was considered the front yard and Carlson stated he
considered the east side of the property to be the rear and that this would have a 30 ft.
sctback. He further stated he has 62 n. of setback with the RR setback. frie slated
irregardless of what is determined to be front or back. there seems to be ample space.
O'Neill questioned that if 3 units werc to be proposed. where did Carlson feel \vould be the
most appropriate spot to put thcm, further adding that they are still presuming that Vine St.
will have to be vacated and that would be up to the City Council who may wish to retain this
for ROW. Fric asked Carlson hCl\v he would address Blonigen.s home being in the ROW
and Carlson stated that according to thc aerial it looks like the house extends into the ROW.
but in fact it is the concrete driveway that is shown in the ROW. Blonigen stated the
driveway is ] foot over the ROW. Carlson notcd the portion of Vine St. that he is asking to
be vacatcd is south ofBlonigen's property. not cast of the Blonigen residence.
frie asked Council Liaison Brian Stumpf to COlnment. as a member of the fire dept.. on the
drive width and Stumpf concurred with Carlson that the trucks are 8 ft. wide and hc did not
feel access would bc a concern. O'Neill advised that regarding the request l<Jr the vacation
of that portion of Vine St.. if staiT can comc up \\ith rcasons \vhy the city would not need to
keep it. or if there is supporting data for thc need to kecp it. would determine this. Stumpf
stated he would be opposed to vacating. Carlson stated one of his motivations for vacating
is that just one block ii'om this parcel is anothcr portion which was vacated not too long ago.
Carlson further added that he was encouraged to proceed with a PUO because he also
planned on living in one of the units and he would be working directly \vith the neighbors on
landscaping. He also advised that he was working with Cyr to put in traditional style homes
which would fit in with the neighborhood and that he went fl'ol11 1 1/2 story units to
ramblers. frie asked about selling price for these homes and Carlson stated with today's
market. possibly $] 80.000 to $200.000. Carlson also stated he did not proceed with the
building plans. figuring that with concept stage they would be working with the site plan and
not building sizes. I-Ie again stated the homes would bc similar to Cyr's units at Vine Place.
possibly a different layout with entries on garage side and patios or the like on the south
side.
Chair fric then closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the commissioners
that the applicant would need to come back to them with a ncw design due to the watermain
location. There was also a qucstion as to if the applicant should proceed with request for
vacation of Vine St.. retaining an easement. and per O'Neill. he felt it may not affect the site
plan as much as they initially thought. It was the intent of the applicant to have a
homeo\,vncrs association in place. Roger Mack adviscd that the city would require 15 n.
total for casements. They discLlssed snow plowing and storage. and Mack advised that
currently they push the snow to the end and pile it there. It was detcrmined that Vine St.
I ()
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning COlllmission Minutes-- 0.5/06'03
\\ill be vie\\ed as the front. Chair Frie felt the concerns brought up at this public hearing
could be resol\'ed \\ith direction 1i"om Planning Commission and staff.
A MOTION \VAS MADE BY DICK fRlE TO CONTINUE Tl IE PUBLIC HEARING
AND TABLE ACTION ON THIS REQUEST TO THE JUNE 3.2003 MEETING. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONOED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0 WITH
RICHARD CARLSON ABS-rAINlNG.
11.
PLlblic Hearing- Consideration of ~l.request f~2.r development stal2~~planned Ul~it development
an.9 preI imi nar): plat apprgyal. along wi th a rS:.lluest for re-zoni ng from AgrieL!lture-Open
Spac~_to a combin,?tion of R:l. sin!.!.1c famil\' re~jdentiaL g-2. single 5'nd two family
resident.i~"L l-IA.ligJ1t industrial. and 8-2. limited business district. Applicant: GoleJNuuget
Oevclop!11ent Inc.
Ste\'e Grittman provided the stafTreport rcgarding Gold Nugget"s proposed development
now known as Featherstone. He felt the developer had addrcssed many of the concerns
noted in previous comments. Staff recommends approval of \'arious rezoning. development
stage PUD, and preliminary plat approval. O'Neill added that there have been some
problems with grading of ponds recently and the city will now be requiring a different
grading pattern with clay bottoms and vegetations. along with low maintenance plantings
around ponds. O'Neill further stated staff is hoping this plat will be the first example of
that. Oragsten asked if there would be turn lanes off of Edmonson and Grittman stated the
County would set thosc standards. Gritt111an advised that trials go all the way through the
properties. including sidewalks throughout the project with park trail through the middle. to
Edmonson. He also noted side\valk on one side of the street although there is onc street that
would have sidewalk on both sides.
Chair l-'rie opened the public hearing. Horst GraseL Gold Nugget Oevelopment stated he
had read staff s comments and advised that the site is not complex and basically a large
field. He further advised of their work on addressing all the areas including industrial.
commercial and residential. Regarding the new policy fix wet ponds he stated he felt he
could work with staff to be consistent with their expectations. He further addressed the City
Engineer's comments regarding turnarounds and he felt perhaps a combination of loop in
and turnarounds would work for both emergency and fire vehicles. He stated that they arc
proposing maintenance free vinyl fence posts to delineate from the park The rest of the
comments he felt werc more a housekeeping mattcr and he could work with staff to resolve.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
Chair Frie asked Graser to respond to lot widths, and questioned him if he felt there would
be any problem getting approval from the County for access off of Co. Rd. 117 or from
MnDOT for Hwy 25. It was noted that they presume that this will not be a prohlem and
there is access right now. The County is currently reviewing Co. Rd. 117. Graser further
stated that the accesses were appro\'ed 4 years ago and he does not expect any problems at
this time. Frie then asked about restrictive covenants for the 6 lots that would be held
responsible for the cuI-dc-sacs. Karen Marty. Attorney for Gold Nugget. stated that this
17
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 05/06/03
would bc an undivided 1/6 intcrest \vhich takes the burdcn off of city staff to maintain. Frie
asked about spurred drivcways and Graser statcd that most are less than 200 sq. fL and the
City Engineer suggested either loop or turnaround. His choice is to provide turnaround in
back for trash pickup and did not feel adding road systems to thc back would be a good idea.
which he will address with stafT and City Engineer. Chair Fric asked staff about a
landscaping plan. noting that \vhcn industrial lots develop they will require a 50ft. buffer
and plantings. Frie asked if money \\'OLIId be escrowed for this. O"Neill stated it is the
responsibility of the industrial developcrs and whcn residential lots are developed money is
held in escrow.
Frie further added that he felt they should look at the park again as he felt the lighting
technology these days is more sophisticated and feels this is a good spot f()[ the park.
O'Neill advised that the Parks Department wanted a larger land area and possibly a different
location. Chair Frie complemented both thc developer and staff for their patience in getting
this project off the starting blocks and a proactive attitude, which hopefully brings this
proposal to fruition. He feels this will spur other development as \vell.
Decision 1 - Development Stage PUll
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TIlE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PUD AL~LOWING 20 ACRES OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SITE
TO BE UTILIZED FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THE OVERALL DENSITY /\ND LAND USE P AlTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TI-IE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Decision 2 - Rezoning from AO to R-l, R-2, 1-1, and B-2
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLO't'D HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE REZONING FROM A-O TO H.-I FOR THE SINGLE FAMIL Y PORTION OF THE
SITE. R-2 FOR 'fHE TOWNHOUSE PORTION OF THE SITE. I-I FOR THE
INDUSTRIAL PORTION OF T1--IE SITE. AND B-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION
OF THE SITE. BASED ON A fINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD
REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision 3 - Prelim Plat for Featherstone
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINAR Y PLAT FOR FEATHERSTONE. AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LAND USE PATTERN IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I.
The developer verifies that all R-l single family lots meet the minimum gO foot lot
18
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning. Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
\\idth rcq uirement. or that the averagi ng allowances of the di strict arc met.
I
Permission must be obtained from Wright County for the access points onto County
Road II 7.
J.
Access approval must be granted by MnDOT for access off of Highway 25.
4.
Funds \vill be required for the reconstruction of both Edmonson and 851h Street.
5.
Additional right-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the intersection of 851h
Street and Highway 25.
6.
Additional right-of-way may be needed ncar the intersections in the
Commercialll ndustrial portion of the site to accommodate medians and turn lanes.
7.
The future Cedar Street extension in the Industrial/Commercial portion of the site
needs to be revised to include an 80 foot right-of-way and 40 foot strcet.
8.
Maintcnance of the two landscaped centcr islands located in the townhouse section
of the site is to be provided via the association
9.
A maintenance plan t(H the landscaped center island located in the R-I portion of the
site is to be submitted and approvcd by the City.
10. Tmmhouse building to building separation needs to be 74 fcet.
II. Necd to add character to linear park areas. including mounding and increased
landscaping.
12. I ntcrmittent split rail fence sections are to replace the white vinyl bollards to be used
to delineate the park from the rear yards.
13. Thc three landscaped center islands arc to be platted as outlots.
14. The landscaped median in the R-I district cul-de-sac is to be owned by each of the
lots fronting on the cul-de.sac in equal undivided interests.
IS. Ponds nced to have strcet exposure for acsthetic and access/maintenance reasons.
16. A pOliion of pond bottom to be lincd so that it holds water. The balance planted with
plant materials that can tolerate periodic inundation.
17.
The southern park will need to be reviewcd by thc Parks Commission as to whcther
to require a small parking lot off of 85th Street.
19
Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/06/03
18.
The applicant is to look into adding windows or some other form of building
treatment to the side ele\'ations of the four unitto\\'llhouse buildings to add to the
character and visual appearance of the buildings.
.
I <).
As dcveloped. the industrial lots are to pro\'ide their portion of landscaping in the
required 50 foot landscaped butTer between industrial and residential LIse.
20.
Plans for the two proposed monument signs are to be submitted and reviewed by
City Stafr Signs should not be located in a center island median.
21.
The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
"
All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
,"
--) .
A revised set of preliminary plat drawings is prepared and submitted, demonstrating
compliance with the adopted plat conditions.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
]2.
Public Hearing - CO!,1.~ideration oL~ request f()r_amendment to a comn}SLcial planned unit
development allowine. an expansioD to an auto s~lcs area. ~?p]icant: M-911tieello Ford~Qave
Peterson
.
.lefT O'Neill provided the staff report and stated the Planning Commission approved an
expansion t()r Ford previously in 2002. From a stall standpoint this will not slow down
development of the site. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not adding
additional use of space wi II set a bad precedent or deter the site from being developed
further. Also need to determine if it will negatively impact the area. O'Neill advised that
this would be valid through 9/3/05. He further stated that stafT is requesting the applicant to
address the lights in the storage area be directed away from the residential area, which
Peterson stated he \vould address.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson. applicant. stated that last October he
received permission from the Planning Commission for the storage units, and at that time he
declined the display area. He stated things have changed and now he feels this is necessary.
He advised of new implementations of Ford and that their intention is not to display cars or
trucks in this area. He provided a photo of what would be displayed in this area. He stated
that his understanding is that in November of 2005 he will need to have a plan in place to
develop this property. He noted that he is working on getting another franchise on that site
and at that time he could justify further development. Frie asked the acreage and Peterson
stated 4.1 acres. and of that there is approx. 1 acre that he is authorized to use as storage.
further stating that there may be 2 0 acres that would remain empty. Peterson clarified that
he is only asking for a display area in the front. .
20
.
.
.
Planning C'ommission Minutes -- 05/06/03
There was discussit)n as to \vho maintains Marvin Road and it was clarified that the city
maintains. Olson. of Olson Electric stated that they have been experiencing problems \\ith
\vater running across their parking lot from the cul-de-sac that was put in and asked Peterson
that when there is snow removal that he keep it further back. Peterson had no problems \\lith
this request. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE IUP AMENDMENT TO EXTEND "rI-IE AREA OF TEMPORARY AUTOMOBIL,E
DISPLAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE SITE PLAN. MAINTAINING TilE CURRENT
TIME LIMIT", SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL CONDITIONS RELATING
TO SITE C3RADING. LIGHTING AND TREE PLANTING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTrON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS'fEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
10:30 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
~r~~
21