Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-03-2003 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MI~ETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - June 3, 2003 6:00 P.M. Memhers Present: S taiT: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgart, David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Deputy City Administrator JelTO'Neill arrived at 7:50 p.m. I . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm and declared a quorum, noting the ahsence of Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill. 2. Approval of the rninutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held May 6, 2003.. ,., .'- 4. 5. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TllE MINUTES OF TilE MAY 6, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LLOYD IJILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Consideration of addin!2: items to the agenda. Steve Cirittman, City Planner, advised that JME has requested the Planning Commission to tahle his item to the next meeting as he is not prepared for the June meeting. Citizens comments. None Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing concept stage planned unit development for 2, four unit townhouse buiIdin!2:s; and Consideration oL~ request for a variance to the 30 foot hont yard setback in the R-2 district off Maple Street and variance to the 20 foot side yard setback off3rd Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the stafT report. He briefly summarized previous concepts that staff and Planning Commission had reviewed for this parcel and provided a site plan indicating the layout of the proposed project which includes an interior drive serving the four units, 2 drives from Maple St. and 2 from 3rd Street. Ramhler style units are proposed and elevations and floor plans were provided. The proposed square II)otage is approx.1600 sq. ft. each, and complies with density for the R-2 district. The applicant is asking tor flexihility on sethacks and therefore staiTis processing the application as a PUD. He further advised that typically the building setbacks are viewed from the perimeter of the sites when looking at PUD's; the applicant is proposing I 6 foot sethacks from both 3rd St. and Maple, and wider to the west property line where there is an existing single family home, as well as 16 It to the south, or church side or property. StatIhas recommended that sethacks be looked at carefully due to location of the site, as there appears to be an opportunity to shift the units to the south, and potentially to the west as well. StafT is recommending that the hui Idings be shifted to meet required sethacks. Technically a variance would need to be granted and staff believes the layout of the site is reasonably setback. It also appears to staff that the property -1- Planning ConHnission M inutcs - 06/03/03 . adjacent to the west would benefit from eventual incorporation into this development and theref()re staH is asking that tl1e applicant preserve for possible future expansion, if it becomes possihle. John Simola, Puhlic Works Director, clarified that sidewalk will be installed from the Legion on Elm St. to Maple Street, as part of the city's core reconstruction. Chair Frie opened the puhlic hearing. Tom Johnson, applicant, addressed the commission stating after he received the staff report he addressed several of stalf's concerns. He advised that the Design Team was able to revise the plan to coincide with the 30 ft. setback on Maple and 20 ft. on 3rd St., but would still encroach on the west, as the rear of the building would be setback approx. 26' to 27'. Johnson further stated he was led to believe that there could be flexibility with the setbacks under the PUD. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion whether this proposal would be a superior project that would qualify 101' a PUD. It was advised that there had previously been 2 suhstandard homes on the site which have been removed and the applicant is proposing 4 units, each with front porches facing the streets. lie also noted the close walking distance to the community center and shops, which he feels fits in with the older part of town as staff had requested. It was noted that the applicant now appears to meet required setbacks and therefore the only issue may be the possible request 1()f 3 to 4 ft. variance to setbacks in the rear. Grittman concurred and noted that the code allows them to be flexible under a PUD. It was noted that landscape plans will be required prior to development stage PUD approval, at which time the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to rcvicw. . Johnson stated he addrcssed the concern by staff with the drive on the west by adding a 6100t bump-out so backing out was easier. He further stated that although the Design Team had reconfigured the site to meet setbacks, they also narrowed the driveways to 16 ft. in the middle and 13 ft. on the far west side. which could be widened in the future if they were able to build on the corner lot. Stumpf questioned garbage pick-up as well as the possible difficulty with emergency vehicles getting in and out with the narrow drives. Marty Bergsten, 1493 Jackson Street, St. Michael, addressed the commission stating that he assumed garbage would be brought up to both 3rd Street and Maple St., the same as itis heing handled now. Johnson advised that there would be an association agreement in place and these would be f()r sale units only. Garbage would be required to be brought out to the streets under that agrecment. Stumpf stated he still felt they need wider drives tor emergency vehicles, as well as city vehicles if there would be need fix possihle future utility work. Dragsten addcd that there is currently a paved area bchind the church that an emergency vehicle could gain access through, although it does not extend the entire length of the parcel. Dragsten also felt stacking might bc di1Ticult, but Johnson felt that they had addressed that, although they would not be 2 cars deep. He questioned the possibility of encroaching into the front setback, as this may help. . Grittman advised the Planning Commission to give the applicant adequate direction so they could proceed with concept stage, and the concerns would be addressed prior to development stagc. Setback issues are the main concern at this time and Grittman stated that if they have a strong feeling one way or another, to dispose of the variance or tablc that request at this time. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 Frie again noted that they could be flexible with a PUD, but would also ask for a superior project to justify granting a PUD. The applicant was also asked the selling price of the homes and he stated approx. $200,000 to $230,000. There was further discussion on density and I [ilgart felt it was too high and he was not convinced that this would be a superior project; hc also doesn't see a hardship for variance approval. Dragsten felt comfortable with density, as well as the 3 to 4 ft. reduction in rear setbacks, but would like thc required setbacks on the side to remain. Carlson felt that staff did not have adequate time to review the revised site plan as it was just submitted at the meeting, as well as having a concern with driveway width. Rietveld was comf(xtable with density, but suggested the driveways be shifted. Frie felt the concept fits with the neighborhood, and adviscd the applicant to meet with staff to resolve concerns with sctbacks, driveways and elevations. Decision 1: Concept CUP/PUD A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FlUE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CONCEPT CUP/PUD APPROVAL -1'0 THE JULY 1,2003 MEETING. RICHARD CARI,SON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Decision 2: Variance to Front Yard Setback (30 foot setback off of Maple Street) A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO BOTI! THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, TO THE JULY], 2003 MEETING, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. There was further discussion whether the Planning Commission had given the applicant any indication or what they and staff would be comfortable with regarding setbacks. Fric saw only a concern with the possible requcst for a 3 ft. variance. They concurred that it would be morc favorablcifthe applicant could meet the requircment, however they would consider the 3 ft. variance request. TI IERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOlJSL Y. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use pcrmit allowing outside storage. Applicant: Jay C. Morrell/JME of Monticello Steve Grittman advised that the applicant had requested this item to be tabled at this time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE TIlE REQUEST AND CONTINUE TO THE JUL Y 1,2003 MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration to review current sign ordinance regarding monument and pylon sil-':ns in relation to height and sc]Uare f()()tagc for possible amendment. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission ,., --)- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 . Steve Grittman advised that Planning Commission and staff had previously discussed reviewing the sign ordinance relating to pylons and monuments aller the Home Depot application was submitted. There were concerns with proposals for higher sign heights that exceeded what is allowable by ordinance. This could assist staff when looking at future sign requests. A draft ordinance was put together with an amendment to the existing code and Grittman clarified that this exception is carved out for large users only. It was also noted that there might be other issues that Planning Commission might want to consider. Grittman advised that Home Depot had been concerned with visibility from the freeway, and staff felt it was an inappropriate way to design the ordinance. Architectural enhancements were also discussed that they may want to review, and Grittman stated there were other options to discuss. The draft is for a starting point only and staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission. It was noted that there had been no public response regarding the public hearing. It was fUliher discussed that the Planning Commission is looking for criteria so that thcy do not have to look at sign requests each time there is an application for retail/commercial development. Frie felt the height and size should be made clear. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Rictveld asked for some clarifications in the dra1t ordinance and Grittman advised, noting that the 50 ft. max. height for pylons ultimately came li'mil the Home Dcpot applieation. They further discussed freeway visibility, noting that propcrties adjacent to freeways already pay a premium price for their property to get exposure. It was staff's view that they should have critcria written stating what thcy arc willing to accept, and the current code is not appropriate to address this. Carlson asked if traflic speed was still takcn into consideration and Grittman advised that it was, although the problem is that traHic speeds changc. They further discusscd the possibility of looking fix architectural enhancements to signs and (i-rittman stated that O'Neill had suggested this with the idea that they might be able to encourage the use of certain types of materials, making signs more an architectural component. They felt monument signs were aesthetically more pleasing and Patch advised that they will need to have a definition of monument signs included in the ordinance. There was further discussion on building and site size criteria, and the amount of wall signage allowed. Dragsten stated he was comfortable with pylon signs no grcater than 60 ft., and frie concurred. Council liaison Stumpf also felt this needed to be clarified up-front. l-Ie was comfortablc with the 60 ft. maximum height as well as the criteria points stated. Decision t: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing a specific method for permitting shopping center freestanding signs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF "lllE AMENDMENT, WrrH A 60 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, BASED ON A FINDING TI IAT THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS JUSTIFY FOR LARGER SIGNS DUE TO ISSUES OF SCALE AND COMMUNICATION TO STREET TRAFFIC OVER A GREAT DISTANCE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. . -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 . There was further discussion regarding monument signs with Grittman advising there would need to be further adjustments. He advised that this should be tabled to the July meeting at which time there would be more detail. THEREFORE, ROD DRAGSTEN RESCINDED IllS MOTION AND RECOMMENDED T ABLINe; TO THE JULY 1,2003 MEETING, WITH THE EMPHASIS ON PYLON AND MONUMENT SIGNS. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Publicl-Iearing - Consideration of comprehensivc plan amendment establishing ratio of sinl-de family homes to attached town homes. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission Steve Grittl11an provided the staffrepOli and asked the Planning Commission to discuss and review the number of single family homcs and attached townhomes. He noted that the City Council has been revicwing the long range land use plan with discussions on density, due to thc amount of dcvelopment that has occurred and is expected to occur over the years. He advised of options that the Planning Commission could discuss such as redefining low density, amcnd the future land use plan, amend zoning ordinance text to include specific ratios or percentages, and/or more strictly define what a tangible benefit required for a pun would be, noting that staff is looking for feedback from thc Planning Commission. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no comments the public hearing was closed. Frie questioned if this was strictly for discussion at this time as Frie's preference would be that staff discuss ideas and propose them to the Planning Commission for review and input. lie further stated that he'd like to get input from builders, developers, and rctailers fi)f their feedback to be taken into consideration. hie advised of a number of comments on the overahundance oftownhomes, not only in Monticello, but in surrounding communities as well, and does not feel that "market driven" should he used as an excuse. Carlson disagreed as he felt the more competition in townhomes, the better product they will have, in most cases. Also, attachcd units arc a life style change. Grittman agreed and stated that he looks to what the town will be like in the futurc. He further added that if they arc going to change the way they look at units and density, they should be doing that with long range plans in mind. It was also noted that Monticello is considered part of the metro arc a and to draw businesses in they need to keep up with the metro. The consensus was to hold an open house and includc invitations to developers, builders, and retailers. There was further discussion on calculating the number of units pcr acre; Dragsten was comfortable with 3 units and felt each one needed to be lookcd at individually, but Hilgart disagreed and feels the city is putting in homes that are not able to be movcd up into. He also feels the need to bring more students into the community. Stumpf agreed with Grittman regarding the proper zoning of land as it is annexed, which also could limit the numher of townhomes allowable. Patch further advised of a possible change in thc ordinance regarding the application process for proposed developments. Frie requested this information be provided at the open house as well. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE DIRECTING STAFF TO SET ADA TE TO CONDUCT AN OPEN IIOUSI-<:, INCLUDING INVITATIONS TO BUILDERS, -5- . 9. . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 DEVELOPERS, AND REALTORS, TO GATHER INFORMATION AND DISCUSS POSSIHLE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY TO ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNIT RATIOS. LLOYD HILGARf SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration to rcview R-l A, R-l, R-2, and R-2A sctback standards for the purpose of clarification of the regulations. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission .lefT O'Neill advised that staff had not had time to document and review possible changes to the residential standards at this time and requested the Planning Commission to continue the public hcaring at the July meeting. A MUfION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC IIEARING TO THE JULY 1,2003 MEETING, RELATING TO REVIEW OF R-l A, R-l, R- 2, AND R-2A SETBACK STANDARDS FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION OF THE REGULATIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOlJSL Y. 10. Continucd Public Hearing ~ Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Otter Creek Crossing commercial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC Steve Grittman advised that stafr had expressed to the applicant they fecl the proposed devclopment appears to fit with the site. Ilowever, the applicant has not yet finalized acquisition of the land. The City Engineer also provided comments via a letter earlier today_ which was provided to thc Planning Commission for their review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE APPROV AL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE OTTER CREEK CROSSING COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION UNTIL THE LAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PLAT ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPER. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 11. Continued Public I--Iearing - Consideration of preliminary plat and development stage PUT) approval of the Carlisle Villagc residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided a brief summary noting a wide range of potential density for this project. The Council's review resulted in a decision that they would be comfortable with a unit range of 21 0 to 220. He noted the appl icant was to provide PUD documentation regarding trec preservation to justify their dcnsity request, and stated he had talked to Lucinda Gardner and it was her understanding that they would be allowed to increase density above 220 if they could justify trcc preservation. Grittman advised that inf(mnation was not reccived in timc to incorporate into the staflreport, and therefore he could not provide feedback to the Planning Commission at this time. I-Ie further added that the City Engineer had stated the same in a letter submitted today. Staff still recommends tabling the development stagc and preliminary plat, and asked that the Planning Commission give feedback on what expectations they will have for staff when they do their revicw. -6- Planning Commission Minutcs ~ 06/03/03 Hilgart asked what the highest density per acre would be for R-IA standards, with the same amenities as this parcel, and Grittman advised it to be 2.3 units per acre. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Gail', MrRA, asked to address tree preservation and his understanding Council had tabled development stage pun approval and requested them to provide inf(xmation regarding a tree preservation plan. Gair proceeded to explain a tree preservation project they had completed in Eden Prairie, but Chair Frie requested Gail' to provide written information regarding the tree preservation plan for this project and not in other citics. Frie further advised that hc was also at the City Council meeting wherc it was requestcd that this inf(Jrmation be provided so that the Planning Commission could make thcir recommcndation. Gail' stated he wantcd to establish credibility and Frie adviscd that thcy do acknowledge their credibility, however he wanted a written plan. Gair advised they had provided a plan, but Jeff O'Neill clarified that the plans were received around noon today, and therefore the Planning Commission did not reeeivc this information. Gair then clarified some of the information that was included in the plan and advised that contractors would be required to sign contracts prior to construction, aeknowlcdging their compliancc with the tree preservation plan. Builders are also informed and trees are fenced and/or marked. All trees that are to be removed will be felled and someone will be availahle at all times to oversee tree prcservation. . Gair stated that the eity ordinance states credit is given for tree preservation and that the appIieant has exceeded the standards with 62% of the trces to he saved in this project. Gail' stated that this is the reason they are asking for the increased density and requesting that the Planning Commission view the project as a whole. Chair Frie then closed the public hcaring. Fred Patch questioned enforcement of the tree preservation plan and Gail' again explained the process. Gardner advised that there would be a single builder f()r this portion of the development and that she would be the enforcer during building process. She stated that the buildcr would be under eontract with financial obligations and if trees were removed that were to be preserved, the developer would be required to replace the trees at twicc the amount and at the city's choice for plaeel11ent. O'Neill advised that the city has a construction inspector as well and that they may wish to put a proccdure in place with thc developer for this purpose. Gardner advised that the builder had to show the trees that are part of the preservation plan, on the building permit application, and therefore they would be noted on the survey. The building inspector could refcr to that as well. O'Neill advised that from the City Council's perspective, they were supportive of higher density if it was proven that the developer could accomplish the preservation plan, and that it is reviewed and signed olTby thc City Engineer. Gardner advised that thcy will grade and prepare the lots so they have control of all tree preservation. . John Sil1101a, Public Works Dircctor, advised of concerns noted by the City Engineer with final planning stages such as placement of joint trcnch utilities and the minimum standards for street widths. Gail' concurred, but advised that they are at preliminary stage and there will need to be a much more detailed study, including information from the City Engineer and wetland people. Gair stated there would be further loss of trees if they are required to dual -7- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 trench. Simola stated that the city does joint trenching but it takes up room, and the proposed narrowing of the streets will affect this as well. . Chair Frie stated that the Planning Commission needs to make a density decision, although thcre rcmain concerns with site plan, grading, draining and utilities, which Simola advised could change the density as well. Frie complimented the developer on their quality work with the tree preservation plan, as well as their efforts to resolve City Council issue. He requested all information be completed and to stalT by June 9th for their review in order for the Planning Commission to make a decision at the July mccting. O'Neill stated from staff's standpoint they could not make a recommendation until they are able to review thc revised plans and clarified that the council agreed to a highcr density than what the Planning Commission recommended for approval. Ililgart disagreed with the density and felt that 200 units should be the maximum; Fric's understanding was that the Council directed the developer to the 220 units, however Gail' advised it was their understanding that they advised 220 units ,and from there they would have to demonstrate tree preservation to justify additional units. Decision 1: Development Stal!c PUD for Carlisle Villal!c LLOYD I IILGART MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING ACTION ON TIII~ DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, SUHJECT TO SUBMISSION OF REVISED PLANS CONSISTEN'f WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND APPROVED CONDITIONS. RICI lARD CARLSON SECONDED TIlE MOTION. . There again was discussion whether the approval should bc contingent on staff and City Enginccr approval, and Simola advised that the devcloper is still required to get County approval regarding stormwater, but that the City Engineer was in the process of setting up a meeting. Simola felt contingcncy should include County approval. Gardner advised that their plan meets County requirements and stormwatcr issues do not specifically rclatc to this plan. Grittman advised that if a request is to be made by the Planning Commission for approval with conditions, they need to be specific. He further noted that the applicant's plan is actually for 241, units but the council had advised a range of 21 0 to 220. "[here was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO I WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN oPPOSrrION. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Villal!e, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND TABLING ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF REVISED PLANS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND APPROVED CONDITIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 'ro I WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION. There was further discussion by O'Neill to possibly call for a special mccting of the Planning Commission prior to thc second meeting of the City Council, as plans have now been Submitted, which staff feels would be su1licient. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE -8- . 12. . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003 AT 5:30 P.M. Rr~GARDING CARLISLE VILI .AGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development in the R-2 District. Applicant: Richard Carlson Richard Carlson, applicant, excused himself from the planning commission and was seated in the audience. Steve Grittman provided the staff report t()f a req uest to review a revised layout of a concept plan for development of a 3 unit attached townhouse project. He advised that without the vacation of Vine St., it is staff s recommendation for the applicant to reduce to 2 units, which is more so due to the shallow density of the lots. It was noted that City Council and staff were not in favor of street vacation. Grittman advised of the possibility of a license agreement for potential LIse of the ROW, however the City Engineer advised that this would not be a proper resolution. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr, MLC Building & Remodeling, representing the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission advising that sinee the last meeting they have modified the plan which allows them to meet setback requirements, if looked at with Vine St. being thc front. He also noted that this plan doesn't require the vaeation of Vine St. Thc revised plan now shows adequate stacking for parking as well. Regarding staffs concerns with the private street being narrower than city rcquirements, Cyr provided photos of a project that he had rccently built in the area, with smaller driveway widths, whieh had heen approved by the city. He asked for clarification on staff's eomments regarding building mass and (i-rittman clari fled that building mass is basically how large the structure is, adding that staff's concern is that becausc of the loeation and dimension oCthe property, the building is being placed in the rear yard of the site and might look out of scale or out of character, as this is typically private space. Cyr felt that this eould be addressed with how it is constructed, such as adding gables to make it a more attractive design. The size of the property supports the units as well. Chair Frie stated he walked the property with Mr. Blonigan, resident adjacent to the applicant's, and agrecs with the recommendation they do not vacate Vine St. Frie askcd if 3 units could be placed on this site and still be in compliance and Cyr advised that there would be one setback not in compliance and it hutts up to property that cannot be developed or used. There was discussion regarding the proposed eul-de-sac shown, and basecl on the City Enginecr's information a 70 n. cui de sac could work, however Simola advised that it is smaller in diameter, but they could still get the new garbage trucks through with a turn radius. Stumpf stated hc saw no problem with emergency vehicles and there is also an existing fire hydrant in place. Cyr furthcr advised of a landseaping screen that was requested by staft~ advising ofa line of trees that are eurrently on the property on the north line. He also advised that they would only need aeeess to Vine Street, no license agreement or vacation. Dan Hlonigan, 405 Vine St., stated he was in agreement with the cul-de-sac, but still doesn't think there is adequate onsite parking and that he would not want to see cars parked in the eul- de-sac. Grittrnan statcd that each house would have a 2 car garage and any overtlow parking -9- . 13. . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 would be in the cui de sac, although he didn't see a demand for overflow other than special occasions. Blongian further advised that he did not object to this proposal, although he was concerned with having his backyard invaded by someone else's front yard. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. There was discussion regarding the need for screening on the nOlih side ofthe property, and Dragsten questioned if the cui-dc-sac was necessary. Simola clarified that it is part of the core city project and being bid at this time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF '1'1 IE CONCEPT STAGE PUD WITH THREE UNITS, TAKING NOTE OF ISSUES RAISED BY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING FUTURE DESIGN AND A V AILAI3LE LAND AREAS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Grittman further clarified future design as a redefined development stage design. Stumpf also advised of a letter submitted by Chris Shinnick, neighboring resident to this site, advising that he was unable to attend the meeting but asked that the Planning Commission consider his comments. Chair hie advised that Mr. Shinnick's letter had been received by the Planning Commission and acknowledged. THERE WAS NO FURTIIF~R DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0 WITH RICHARD CARLSON ABSTAINING. Consideration of an appeal of decisions by the Monticello Design Advisory Team (DA T) regarding signs located at 211 Highway 25 South. Applicant: Flickers TV & Appliance. Fred Patch provided the report and advised that Flicker's had erected a sign on the cast side of their building where the original sign had been located. He understood that the original sign was flat against in the wall, but it was claritied that the sign was on the awning. Patch stated the existing sign was taken down and a new one ercctcd which is internally illuminated, further stating that he did not rccall whether the original was illuminated. lIe advised that thc Design Advisory Team (DA T) states that signs must not be internally illuminated; however the Downtown Revitalization Plan doesn't specifically state this. External illumination of signs is allowed and they have also allowcd individually illuminated channel letters. DAT stated the sign could stay in place, however it is to be illuminated externally only. It was noted that if the Planning Commission concurs with the DA T's decision, the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council. Jay Sieferle, owner/applicant, apologized that thcrc was not a permit obtained and that he assumed that the sign company had gotten it. He did call city hall and was told to proceed with putting up the sign, also noting that the building across from him has the exact same lighting on its sign. He had this sign designed narrower to what the previous sign was, using the cxact samc lighting. Siefcrlc did state however, that he did put up thc sign on the west side and is wiIIing to change thc lighting of it to the type that is similar to thc Loch Jewelers sign, if requested. He also noted that the sign he has is thc design that is used by all of the stores in this chain. -10- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 There was further discussion on other signs in the downtown area and whether they were in compliance. Carlson commented that this partieular sign seems to be more functional as it also lights up the doorway into the building. Sieferle stated he understands the request that signs be consistent with those in the older part of the town, but he also feels that he has improved the entrance to his store. O'Neill advised the intent of the code was to stay away from block type signage and this type of sign starts to fall into that category. He further stated the Towne Center channel letters were a compromise and due in pali to the speed of Hwy. 25; and they also fcel it is more aesthetically pleasing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CI lAIR FRIE TO ALl ,OW THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIS BUIlDING AND TO COMPLY WITH TlIE SIGN REGULATIONS FOR 'fHE SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Carlson asked f()r clarification regarding the lighting of the sign on the east side and could the applicant retain the existing fluorescent lighting, in addition to the external illumination. Patch stated that the applicant must climinate the CUlTent internal lighting and install a type of goose- neck lighting. The applicant asked for a time frame to be in compliance and he was given 30 days. THERE WAS NO FURTIIER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 14. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. rbf"- -11-