Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-01-2003 . . 4. . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - July], 2003 6:00 P.M. Members present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd lIilgart, David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Staff: .lefT O'Neill and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. dcclared a quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held June 3. 2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MUrION. MOTION CARRIED LJNANIMOUSL Y. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the sidc yard setbacks for a single l~llnilv garage. Applicant: Tom Holthaus/Red Rooster Properties, Inc. Item withdrawn. This item was withdrawn from the agenda, per Building Official Fred Patch, asit was determined that no variance would be required for the garage addition. 6. Public I learing - Consideration of a request for 10 foot variance to the side yard setback to construct deck. Applicant: Virgil & Wanda Potter Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report and advised that the applicants had submitted an application fIX a deck permit, however the plan submitted did not show property lines or dimensions as the city does not require a survey with deck permit applications. The applicant's measured the setbacks from the edge of the street, eXplaining that they understood that to be their property line. The building department did not catch the setback error at the time of the initial inspection, however the inspector who issued the permit did see the encroachment into the 20 f()ot side yard setback when conducting the framing inspection and stopped the project before decking was installed. Staff is now asking the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether to allow a variance for the deck to remain where constructed. Jeff O'Neill advised that he observed the applicant's deck and it appeared to be unobtrusive and actually blends in well from the sides. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. The applicant, Virgil Potter, 211 Linn Street, addressed the Planning Commission and explained their misunderstanding regarding setbacks. He further advised . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 07/01/03 that they had purchased materials for a railing for the deck and asked to be allowed to put it up as planned. The applicants feel it would look better with the railing. He also stated that they do have a tree that blocks the view from 3rd Street, as well as plants and shrubs, and they would rnove the entrance to the side of the deck, away from the street. There being no further comments, Chair frie closed thc public hearing. It was advised that staff had received no comments from neighbors regarding this matter. Frie asked Potter if their intcnt was to dress up the property, noting that he observed many itcms stored on their property. Potter advised that they are working on fixing up their propcrty and anticipate selling some of the itcms Frie had mcntioned. frie advised that both staff and Planning Commission need to look le)f a resolution to the situation sincc the deck is already in the process of being built. O'Neill further added that errors such as these seem to occur every several years, but further added that considering the number of pcrmits issued in a year, thcre tends to be a few that arc missed. Regarding the conditions listed in the staff report, Hilgart asked if the applicant would be willing to go without a railing on the deck, but Potter stated they would prefer it as they fclt it would make it look much nicer. O'Ncill stated that the railing gives it a sense of a structure, rather than a patio which docs not require adherence to setback requirements, and therefore the reason fix that request. Dragsten agreed and stated that with the deck being only a few feet off the ground, the railing would not be necessary, although he agreed that it would look better with a railing. There was further discussion whether staff should require surveys for deek permits, but it was noted that surveys arc expensive and this could create a hardship for applicants. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO ALLOW A VARIANCE, FOR A TEN FOOT (10') REDUCTION TO THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FRONTING ON LINN STREET', SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. NO PART OF TI IE DECK MA Y EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE. 2. SHRUBBERY LANDSCAPING MUST BE INSTALLED ALONG THE SIDE OF THE DECK TOWARD LINN STREET TO VISUALLY BUFFER THE EDGE OF THE DECK FROM TIlE STREET. MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DECK IS CONSTRI)CTED WITHIN 18 INCIIES OF ADJACENT GRADE, IS MADE LESS OBTRUSIVE BY REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, CREATES A VISUAL ATT ACIIMENT BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE, AND SERVES AS THE MAIN ENTRY LANDING FOR TilE HOUSE, AND ALTERNATE LOCATIONS ARE IMPRACTICAL. MOTION SECONDED BY DAVE RIETVELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Continued Public I Iearing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use permit allowin!2: outside storage. Applicant: Jay C. Morrell/JME of Monticello It was advised that a letter was received by the applicant's attorney earlier that day asking that this item be continued. OriUman advised there was no specific number oftimcs that the applicant could -2- . . . Planning COlnmission Minutes - 07/0 I /03 ask for an item to be continued. O'Neill advised that internally stafT does re-send public hearing notices to residents within the 350' radius of the property in cases where items are continued for this length of time, and that there had been inquires from neighboring property owners who would I ike to attend the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Continued Public HearinQ - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing concept stage PU D fi)r 2. four unit townhouse buildings: and Consideration of a request lor a variance to the 30 foot front yard setback in the R-l District off Maple Street and variance to the 20 foot side yard setback off 3rd Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC Steve Grittman provided the staff report and stated that the applicant had previously met with staff to discuss options to come into cont()rmance with the city's zoning ordinance, and was able to comply with all items requested by stan: as well as reducing requests for varianees to the setbacks, other than the 20 feet from Maple Street. Grittman further advised that these items included deepening the dimension of the recessed garages, slightly widening driveways and adding curb, additional turnaround space at the ends of the driveway, and meeting separation diiTerences. Therefore, stall' recommends approval of the concept stage PUD and variance to the setback along Maple Street. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. There was discussion on the difference in Jloor plans that were included in the staiJ report and Grittman advised that the applicant would be asked to comply with the approved plan. He further added that landscape, grading, drainage, and utility plans will be required at development stage as well. Grittman advised of several superior elements of this plan that would support granting a PUD such as added curbing to the drives, which will protect landscaping, as well as architecture that is superior to what is typically required oftownhome projects. hie further thcU1ked the applicant and staff for their efforts in redesigning the initial plan, putting emphasis on the traditional look ofthe neighborhood, and he felt that it would be a positive enhancement to the neighborhood. Decision 1: Concept Stage PlJD for Emerald Estates A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING TIIA T THE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN A SUPERIOR DESIGN TO TI fAT WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO ACCOMMODATE CROSS ACCESS FROM THE ADJOINING PARCEL TO THE WEST IF THAT PARCEL IS REDEVELOPED IN A STYLE SIMILAR TO THE EMERALD ESTATES PROJECT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED 'fHE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y. Decision 2: Variance from the front yard setback for Emerald Estates A MOTION W i\S MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TIlE VARIANCE TO Tl-IE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR EMERALD ESTAfES, BASED ON A FINDING TIIAT THE -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes -.- 07/0 1/03 SHAPE AND SIZE OF TI IE SITE, COMBINED WITH TIlE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORIIOOD, JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE fROM TIlE SETBACK S'fANDARD. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9, Continued Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a request for development stage PlJn and preliminarv plat for Carlisle Villal!e, a mixed residential proieet. Applicant: Shadow Creek Development Steve Grittlnan provided the staff report. The applicant presentcd a revised site plan at the meeting, which Grittman advised would need to be looked at further as staff had not yet seen it. He summarized the applicant's request fix 3 types of housing and stated that this plan had been gone through several times by both the city council and the planning commission, with the council's decision accepting the applicant's proposal for 240 units, pending their ahility to adequately establish a tree preservation plan. Grittman futiher stated that the applicant feels they would save upwards of 2/3 of the trees on the site, however a drawing was provided indicating additional trees that the City Engineer fcels may be lost with the type of grading the applicant is proposing. As a rcsult, planning staff and City Engineer felt it was important to put together a process to ensure each site and the trecs on that site, which is part of Exhibit Z in the stafJreport. Grittman further added other eomments by the City Engineer and staff regarding street layout, as well as commcnts related to hui Idability of some of the lots regarding usable rear yards. The Engineer states that the grading plans suggest that some modifications will need to be made to several of the lots due to sloping, but Grittman also advised that the applicant has revised their drawings since the receipt of the City Engineer's comments. From a planning standpoint staff leels the project has proceedcd to a point where they would approve devclopment stage and preliminary plat, with conditions. Stumpf clarified that the council did vote in favor of thc 240 units, but only with a "strict" trec preservation plan. Therc was also discussion on what the city's policy is in keeping street widths at city standards and Grittman stated if they can keep with the standards without trec loss, that would be their preference, although the applicant felt there would be more tree loss with the standard width; he also stated there are some tlexibilities with the R-IA standards and felt the ROW is not relevant. Regarding street width and the addition of sidewalk, it could be a factor as it will require additional pavement. Grittman advised that a partial response to that was if the city could ohtain a wider easement rathcr than standard, along with meandering the sidewalk, it might be doable. O'Neill further stated in talking with Bret Weiss and John Simola, they may be more flexible in the alignment of utility trcnches, but were not supportive of a narrower road. He further noted that the City Engineer did not feel there would be too many additional trees lost with a wider street. It was noted that there would be sidewalks throughout the development. Chair Frie opcned the pubic hearing. Mike GaiL MFRA, addressed the Planning Commission and noted that the most recent suggestions from staff and consultants have produced what appears to he a plan that has value to the developer, future homeowners, and the city and it's representatives. lIe noted that the handout he provided this evening included the first concept submitted, as well as the site plan that the City Planner used f()r his report and the plan that was revised after receiving comments from the City Engineer on 6/26/03. He referred to the l~ngineer's summary regarding -4- . Planning Commission Minutes - 07/0 1!O3 the applicant's signifIcant effort, and (Jail' felt the project has moved iorward due also to the willingness of stafJ and consultants to work with the applicant. Gail' further referred to the City Engineer's comments and how the coneems have been addressed. Regarding tree preservation and the ability to maintain ROWand leave buildings at their initial locations, they still i'eel they would be able to accomplish the tree preservation plan. Regarding item 2 in Exhibit Z, Gair stated they would like to have a 52 n. ROWand a 96 ft. building spacing with a 30 ft. roadway, which would be the only exception to item 2. tIc further commented on parking and that there are a number of areas in the development that are not in direct contlict. Gail' advised that they would be in excess of required guest parking with approximately 38 spaccs, versus the required 33. He then advised ofa specific lot that was noted in the City Engineer's report and that it was increased to 90 ft. versus the standard 45 ft. . Chair Prie then closed the public hearing. There was continued discussion on street widths and building separation. Gail' noted that guidelines state a 25 ft. minimum, 35 ft. average setback standard and (hittman clarified that 40% of the lots need to be set back 35 ft. Gail' questioned the possibility of 30 ft. being the average and Grittman stated this could be discussed, although he did not feel Gail' would need that and stall is trying to avoid the need for a PUD in this zoning district by having thc 35 ft. setback as the average. I Ic also stated that staff may be willing to look at these individually as they come up. Grittman advised that each building pad would be graded separately versus rnass grading, which will aid in the number of trees that will be saved. The Planning Commission again commended the applicant on their tree preservation plan. Decision 1: Development stage PU D for Carlisle Villa~e A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART "1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT S"rAGE PUD FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM TilE STAFF REPORT FOR THE JULY 1,2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Chair Frie to include in the motion adherence to the tree preservation plan in Exhibit Z, and applicant to submit plans prior to city council review. Lloyd Hilgart and Rod Dragsten amended their motions accordingly. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE JUL Y 1,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND REVISED PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. There was illliher discussion with Gail' asking for clarification on what revised plans they were referring to. O'Neill advised that they were referring to the plans that the applicant submitted at -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 07/0 I /03 this meeting, versus the plans that the Planning Commission had reeeived with their information. Gail' further questioned ifa]1 engineering concerns needed to be resolved prior to city council review and O'Neill advised that typically this would be a condition of the approval, prior to final stage approval. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to review current sign ordinance regarding monument and Ion si Tns in relation to heiuht and s uare foota e for ossible amendment. A lieant: Monticello Planning Commission Steve Grittman advised the Planning Commission that the revised sign ordinance amendments included in the staff report had two changes, one altered the allowable height of the pylon to 50 feet, and the other added language to define pylon and monument signs. He stated that staif is comfortable with recommending this ordinance amendment. Chair frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no comments the public hearing was then closed. There was discussion on language in the proposed ordinance amendmcnt referring to brick and stone and Grittman stated it was addcd to provide some architectural direction and not actually very restrictive, but they wanted to providc some direction on what staff would expect of applicants. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRlE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT LARGE SHOPPING CENTER AREAS REQUIRE SEPARATE OPTIONS FOR SIGN COMMUNICA'rION. DA VI:: RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Continued Publie lIearing - Consideration to review R-IA R-l, R-2, and R-2A setback standards for the purpose of clarification of the regulations. Aoolieant: Monticello Planning Commission Grittman advised the Planning Commission that this was a housekeeping item clarifying setback standards and total side yard distance. When the R- I, R-I A, and R-2A Districts were developed last year, an extensive set of changes was made relating to varied setbacks and other regulations. 'fhe proposed ehanges are technical and not intended to change the meaning of the regulations. Grittman stated this is necessary to head off any concerns over interpretation. Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no comments the public hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SETBACK REGULATIONS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S HISTORICAL APPLICATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND REFLECTS THE INTENT OF THE CITY IN PREVIOUS DECISIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -6- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 07101/03 Chair Frie stated that he has bcen repeatedly asked about the status ofT Iome Depot. O'Neill advised that two weeks ago he heard lfom the project coordinator that the developer is not looking further at the Cedar Street site and apparently they have decidcd to hold off at this time. The plan now is to look at an April ground breaking. Their issue is negotiating/coordinating with Walmart. The City is ready to go, but the agreement between those two parties has not been resolved and Home Depot indicated they will not move forward until that agreement has been madc. frie further asked about Target possibly joining hands with IIome Depot east of town on the Dahlheimer property and O'Neill stated there is a developer looking at the Dahlheimer property for a development, which is actually larger than the Home Depot/Walmart site. lIe noted that there will be a workshop on July 141h with thc dcveloper which will set the framework fi)r that project and how the city will be funding the improvements, etc. Regarding the CSAH 18/1-94 interchange, O'Neill advised that one major change would be that County Rd 75 would no longcr connect to the cast side of town becausc the overpass would become an underpass. The Meadow Oaks neighborhood would need an altcrnate route into their developmcnt and this will have to bc looked into further. The money could be available as of2005 from MnDOT. Thc developer has tenants who are ready to proceed. O'Neill again stated it is a very complex process, but doable. Richard Carlson askcd about the new entrance sign erected on Hwy. 25 to the north by the bridge, stating it was placcd in the boulevard. O'Neill had not scen it, although he did sce the plans and adviscd that this had been approved by the council, as well as other entrance signs that will be erected. 12. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. LLOYD I-ULGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ~/ ~lDn_~ ~~~ ~~~--LJ~~-W_Y -7-