Planning Commission Minutes 06-01-2004
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William
Spartz
None
Absent:
Staff:
JefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Ollie Koropchak, Chuck Rickart - WSB &
Associates, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting a full quorum of the
Commission. Frie also welcomed and introduced new Planning Commissioner William
Spartz.
2.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, May
4. 2004 and the special meeting held Monday, May 24th. 2004.
MOTION BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 4T1I, 2004.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED wrrlI SPARTZ
ABSTAINING.
In reviewing the May 24th minutes for approval, Dragsten questioned condition number 6
in the motion for approval, referring to lighting requirements for Sunny Fresh Foods.
Dragsten inquired whether the motion had required that lighting be replaced or instead
evaluated for replacement. O'Neill clarified that the condition indicates that
lighting will only be replaced if necessary to meet the code.
MOTION BY DRAGS TEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24'rH, 2004, WITH
CONDITION 6 AS NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED l)NANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Frie requested that an update by staff on zoning and design standards for the Sunset Ponds
development be added to the agenda as Item 14, should time permit.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
4.
Citizen comments.
None.
5.
Public Ilcaring - Consideration of a relluest for variance to the minimum setback
requirement for fence placement. Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tyke Sylvers
Grittman reviewed the staiTreport, indicating that the applicants are seeking approval
of a variance from the zoning regulations that limit the height of fcnces in the setback
adjaccnt to the public street. The parcel is located at thc corner of Savannah and Park
Place Drive in the Groveland ncighborhood.
Grittman stated that the applicants wish to construct a 4 foot high fence within 5 feet
of the property line along the side lot line adjacent to Savannah. Thcy are seeking a
variance from thc required 15 foot setback to permit thc additional one foot of height.
When rcvicwing a variance request, the Zoning Ordinance requires that applicants
must demonstrate a unique, physical hardship that interfcres with putting the lot to
rcasonable use.
Grittman explained that the applicant's lot is a fully conforming lot that can be put to
its normal, single family use. The applicants argue that the IS foot setback unduly
limits thc usc of their back yard. Grittman notcd that the applicants have altcrnatives
within the currcnt ordinance that would resolvc this issue. Within the 15 foot setback,
it is pcrmissible to construct a 3 foot tall fcncc without any further regulation. Such a
fence could be placcd along the right of way line, or at the 5 foot setback line they
havc proposed. Landscaping could also be used to effect a screen for the rear yard
area. Grittman stated that it is planning stair s view that no hardship is present to
warrant a departure from the ordinance standard.
Hilgart asked how close to the property line applicants could place a three 11.)ot fence.
Patch indicated that they could go right to property line, provided they do not interfere
with line of sight requirements for the adjoining strects.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Aaron Quinn, 9893 Park Place Drive, inquired whether the City had any applicable
ordinance relating to requirements for corner lot widths and depths. Patch stated that the
City had ordinances relating to minimum lot width and area, but nothing specific to corner
lots. Quinn stated that he had rcscarched such ordinances within other communities and
found that corner lots requircd greater widths to accommodate the narrowing of corner
lots. Quinn indicated that undcr the current fence setback rcquirements, they would losc
about 3000 square fcet of their lot. Quinn stated that they had chosen the four foot fence
as a compromise between a full privacy fcncc and the three fiJot fencc allowed by code,
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1/04
though they preferred a privacy fence. Quinn also noted that the ordinance previously
allowed four foot fences and was unsure why it changed.
Patch stated that the applicant was correct in that the fence ordinance was originally
proposed at 4 feet in front yards within 15 feet of the property line. However, the
Planning Commission had discussed potential impacts to the streetscape visibility. Patch
recommended the Planning Commission look at this topic again, specifically due to the
fact that a public hearing for an ordinance amendment is being proposed later in the
agenda.
Frie encouraged the applicant to either stay for the agenda item related to the fence
ordinance or to contact stafT to discuss how the decision could impact their property.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VARIANCE
REQUEST BASED ON THE OUrCOME OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 10
RELAnNG TO A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO
THE FENCE ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT IS DIRECTED TO WORK WITH
STAFF PENDING THE RESULTS OF THAT AMENDMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a
development stage planned unit development and a request for a preliminarv plat for a
residential development in the CCD district. Applicant: Landmark Square
Grittman presented the staiI report, stating that he applicants are seeking
Development Stage PUD approval and a Preliminary Plat for the second phase of the
Landmark Square project. This phase consists of 11 residential units that would
replace existing single family homes, and complete the parking lot construction that is
intended to lessen the congestion on the Phase I site.
Grittman indicated that the applicants have made a number of alterations to the
original concept plan, based on discussions with staff. These include the modification
of entrance driveway from Locust Street to increase width and improve circulation;
changes to the central parking area to add green space and increase drive aisle widths;
the relocation of the buildings to avoid encroachment of stairways onto public right of
way, the removal of non-conforming obstructions in the first phase parking lot; and
the redesign of Units I and 2 to increase building separation and accommodate
vehicular circulation and utility access.
Grittnlan noted that a few issues remain on the current submission. (i-rittman stated
"
-)
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
.
that the driveway extending to the east property line should show a curb termination.
A hydrant is also needed in this area. Placing the required hydrant in a curbed island
would protect it from traffic.
Grittman commented that building plans have been revised to improve the garage
exposure on Units 3 and 4. He recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that
no parking occurs in this driveway, since a vehicle would bc parking on the public
right of way, and would hang into thc strcct if parked in this location.
Finally, Grittman stated that for a Planned Unit Development, the City commonly
requires an enhanced landscaping scheme. The current landscape plan includes just
II trees around the site (mostly on public right of way), and shows other undesignated
green space. Enhanced plans must be developed and provided to thc City for revicw
prior to the City Council considcration of the project. Grittman also recommended
that landscaping should be designed by a qualified landscapc architect.
Grittman also noted that there are other utility and engineering issues that will need to
be addressed as a part of the City's considcration of this project.
Grittman stated that with thosc modifications and resolution of engineering and utility
issues, this request is consistent with the previous concept plans. StafT is
recommending approval.
.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to ordcr.
Dragsten expressed concern regarding thc garagc for Units 3 and 4. Dragsten inquired
whether the City normally requires stacking for a garage fronting a public street. Grittman
answered that normally the City docsn't accommodate this type of arrangement.
However, this specific design was approved as part of the concept stage approval
considcring therc was no othcr way to provide access that garage.
Brad Johnson, Mastcrs 5th Avenue, property developer, displaycd project elevations for
the Commission. Johnson stated that thcy would comply with recommendations as noted
and made himself available for questions.
Doug Schneider, property owncr to the east of the proposed project, addrcsscd the
Commission. Schneider commented that the City of Monticello's downtown
revitalization project focused on busincss growth in the area. Schneidcr statcd his concern
that this rcsidcntial growth may prohibit other business growth in that location.
Frie asked if the proposed plan is in compl iancc with CCD goals and requirements.
Grittman indicated it is; the downtown revitalization plan encourages a mixed-use concept
including both commercial and rcsidcntial growth.
.
4
Planning Commission Minutes-06/O I /04
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Dragsten noted again his concern on allowing a garage on a public street without stacking.
Dragsten stated he would like to see are-design of that area.
Carlson inquired whether at the time the north seetion was developed, if additional
parking was discussed. Carlson referred to the plan, which secms to refleet a line between
residential and eommercial parking due to the island placement. Grittman indicated the
design is consistent with code. Johnson responded that the relocation of the largc power
pole creatcd the design, as landscaping around thc pole was nceded. Johnson stated that
they want to encourage parking.
Johnson also clarified the note on the plan indicating that the applicants are "attempting to
acquire easements", stating that there is a small area that they need to discuss with an
adjacent property owner. They are waiting for development in that area to address that
issue. Johnson indicated it doesn't affect this project.
Posusta expressed eoncern about the possible encroachment of vehicles onto the public
right of way. Grittman indicated that staff knew it eould be a potential issue, however the
plan represented is the perhaps the best arrangement of units and garages on the property.
.
Frie inquired whether the Monticello Community Partnership is still active and whether
they have looked at the plan for compliance. O'Neill indicated that first-lloorrcsidential
is allowable in the CCD by a conditional use permit. The eoncept was reviewed somc
months ago by the Design Advisory Team. Design reeommendations werc madc at that
time. O'Ncill stated that planning staff and the Commission should keep Schneider's
comments in mind in determining an appropriate mix of uses in thc downtown area.
Frie asked whether the units would be for sale or rental. Johnson said that 7 will be
owner-occupied townhomes with upper and lower living, two othcr units are duplexes
with the lower level owner occupied and the upper unit rental. Frie also asked Johnson
for approximate values. Johnson stated that as part of HRA agreement, the townhome
units will sale at $170,000+ and thc duplexes will be sold at $330,000 f()r each building.
Frie noted that the parking lot completion will help alleviate parking congestion in the
area. Frie inquired if the barriers in the alley would be removed. Johnson stated thc
barriers were put there by another property owner for reasons that were believed to be
related to a water main. Johnson indicated that they would encourage their removal.
Johnson stated that parking and stacking for the Unit 3 and 4 garagc could be addressed in
the assoeiation documents, which could require no parking in thc area of that garage.
Schncider asked what type of rcsidential is allowed in the CCD. O'Neill answcred that a
eonditional usc permit is required for first floor residential, as in this casc.
.
5
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
.
Grittman noted that there are first phase remaining street improvements which still need
to be completed as part of conditions. He recommends their completion as an additional
condition as part of exhibit Z.
MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AND PUD,
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJEeT MEETS THE CITY'S IN'T'ENT AS
EXPRESSED IN THE CONCEP'r PLAN APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS AS
NOTED, WIT1I COMPLETION OF FIRST PHASE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS
ADDITIONAL CONDITION 6.
I. The driveway extending to the east property line must terminate in a curb line at least five feet
from the property line.
2. A hydrant is to be located near the east garage building that has protection from traffic. This
should be accomplished by placing the hydrant in a curbed island.
3. Steps should be taken to ensure that no parking occurs in the driveway for Units 3 and
4. The applicants should provide a professionally prepared landscaping plan that enhances the
project and helps justify the use ofPlJD on this block.
5. Public works and engineering issues are addressed by the appropriate staff.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON.
.
Dragsten added that the applicants should seek a possible redesign as notation to the
motion. Frie asked Johnson i[ working with staff on a redesign would be considered.
Johnson indicated that it would be.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing for
drive-up retail sales; motor fuel dispensing; light automobile service, including tires
and batteries; open and outdoor sales; convenience foods; joint parking and drives;
sign plan; and a request fiJr preliminary plat [or a commercial development in a B-3
district. Applicant: Wal-Mart
Grittman presented the staff report for the request. The applicants, Ocello LLC., in
cooperation with Wal-Mart, are requesting conditional use permits and preliminary plat
review and approval for a 203,091 square foot commercial retail building to be located
southeast of the eedar Street and School Boulevard intersection. The proposed Wal-Mart
application includes conditional use permit approval for the following; motor fuel
dispensing, tire and battery service, open and outdoor sales, convenience food service,
joint parking and drive aisles, and common signage. Urittman indicated that staff felt that
.
6
Planning Commission Minutes-06/O 1/04
the conditional use permits fit the site without a PUD designation.
.
Grittman indicated that the proposed plat consists of two parcels on an approximately 32
acres site that is zoned B-4, Regional Business District. Commercial retail is an allowed
use within the B-4 district. Lot 1 of Block 1 is a 27.3 acre parcel of which will include
the proposed Wal-Mart building. The second parcel is a 5 acre outlot located to the east
of Lot 1 of Block 1. Grittman noted that the proposed site is oriented to Cedar St. and
Highway 25, with three access points on School and three on Cedar.
Grittman stated that the preliminary plat includes a concept for Outlot A of what
appears to be an oflice use to the north and townhome units to the south of the outlot.
The purpose of the illustration is to demonstrate potential use of the remnant parcel.
Grittman explained that the concept is not part of the approval of the preliminary plat.
The proposed uses shown would be part of a separate application process.
Staff has met with Wal-Mart reps to work on resolving some of the staff conditions and
recommendations. Grittman summarized some of the resolutions from the conditions of
Exhibit Z for both the conditional use permits and the preliminary plat.
.
For the preliminary plat portion, the applicants will provide revised plans illustrating the
proposed sidewalks on Cedar St. and School Blvd. Applicants have also agreed to
provide an escrow for future sidewalks and lighting projects based on future alignments.
Those projects will not be constructed until final alignments have been prepared. A
discussion of timing for escrow is being worked out with staff.
Grittman recommended an alternative paving surface rather than asphalt for the front
entrance area. He stated that the applicant is not in favor of an alternative surface. The
applicant is agreeable to east side landscaping and elevation improvements in order to
improve School Boulevard site lines. Grittman noted that the Commission's packet
included alternate examples of architecture for Wal-Mart stores. Grittman stated that
there are a number of ways to improve the look of the building, included brick accents and
other minor additions. Applicants have stated they are amenable to design improvement
suggestions. The applicants have also agreed to provide a seasonal sales plan.
Grittman noted that landscape plans were very well done and detailed. A significant
amount of landscaping was provided. The plans require Xcel Energy's review, which
applicant has agreed to.
Applicant is willing to comply with the other recommendations of staff relating to the
plat, including providing a photometric plan for the gas station canopy approved by staff,
and appropriate garbage screening.
Grittman stated that the Outlot A access point causes issues related to traffic and safety.
Chuck Rickart, traffic engineer for WSB, will address that issue. The applicants have
.
7
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
.
expressed willingness to work with staff to resolve access issues, whether through
medians or other alternatives approved by staff. Grittman noted that grading and utility
plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer, who has provided comments.
Details on those issues will also be outlined and resolved in the construetion plans.
Grittman reviewed thc conditions for approval of the CUPs. Grittman recommended that
an in- and out-bound aceess lane should bc provided at the drive-through pharmacy for
safety and traffic flow purposes. Applicants have indieated a willingness to work with
staff to accomplish this. The recommendations on eanopy design requirements and canopy
signage are also agreeable to the applicants.
There is some concern about noise and lighting should the City approve residential use
adjacent to the property. Grittman stated those items will have to be considered in future
approvals for development on Outlot A. Grittman relayed that the applicants believe that
buffer landscaping (which exceeds the requirements for high density
commercial/residential) will mitigate this. The applicants would like the Commission to
accept the buffer as submitted.
Staff has recommended that the Cedar Street center aislc island extend deeper into parking
area, due to concern about backing traffic. Grittman's primary concern is entering traffic
as this access will be a heavily used entrance. Grittman stated that the current design
could create traffic back-ups onto Cedar.
.
Finally, stalTrecommended tree plantings between the building and parking areas.
Grittman eXplained that the applicants are suggesting planters, which stafT feels are an
acceptable enhancement. Those improvements should be shown on the plan.
It is staWs recommendation to approve the request for preliminary plat and conditional
use permits, with conditions as noted and with deference to the plan approval by the City
Engineer on access, utility and storm water considerations.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Darcy Winter, D.E.Winter Associates, commercial real estatc broker and Wal-Mart
representative, addressed the Commission. Winter introduced Aaron Thompson and Jered
Morris ofOlssen & Associates, civil engineers for the Wal-Mart project, and Michael
Semrick of Boice Radl Rhea Architects, project architect.
Winter stated that she would agree with Grittman's comments as stated. Winter affirmed
that they will continue to work with staff between now and Council to resolve the issues
as outlined.
Winter indicated that the north f~lce (elevation facing School Blvd.) and entry areas will
be improved. Winter noted that the garden center's location on this side will help
improve the look of the building. Winter eXplained that the elevation proposed had been
.
8
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
.
developed specifically for Monticello. T'hey are open to discussion on other
improvements recommended by staff.
Winter recognized that the outstanding issue is the access points to thc Wal-Mart, Outlot
A and Autumn Ridge areas. The applicants will work with staff to come to an acceptable
conclusion on this issue. However, Winter indicated they are seeking approval in ordcr to
move the project forward.
Chuck Rickart, WSB Engineering, responded to the access concerns. Rickart stated that
the primary issue is that therc a total of four access points into School Boulevard are
shown on the plan. Three of thesc points are less than 250' apart. Increasing traffic and
turning movements from future accesses from the north side become a huge safety issue
due to the 15,000 vchicles per day projected to travel School Boulevard. Rickart's
recommendation is to eliminate thc Outlot A access completely, and space the other
access points fairly evenly apart.
Frie inquired about Exhibit Z, which requests that the number of access points on both
Cedar and School be reduced from three to two. Rickart stated that reference was related
only to the three access points from the Wal-Mart site.
.
Winter explained to thc Commission that the east access point to School Boulevard from
the Wal-Mart site is to be used solely for truck access. Wal-Mart prefers that a separate
entrance is provided for truck traffic, keeping public traffic separate. Winter indicated
that the traffic conflicts would be less due to limited truck access. Winter stated that the
other potential use for the access is the Tire and Lube Express. However, in Winter's
cxperience, the north entrance will be the most used for those customers. Wal-Mart
representatives and staff have discussed median as a control measure.
Frie asked if truck traHic comes during off-peak hours. Winter stated that it docs. Frie
also inquired what the project timeframe is. Winter indicated they arc moving toward
opening 9-12 months from governmental approval. She noted that they are completing
EA W work. Wal-Mart would like to be in ground late summer, early fall.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart asked Grittman what the rccommended alternative paving surface would be.
Grittman stated therc are a number of options including concrete. He stated that it is
staff s position that thcse are more evident and attractive. Also, cars tend to slow for
those types of surfaces. Winter replied that Wal-Mart is very safety conscious and would
have a concern about concretc. They feel the bituminous that they usc is suitable and
there is a potential liability with any other surface.
.
Dragsten inquired who controls the Outlot A. Grittman stated that Shawn Weinand,
Ocello, Inc., still owns the property. Dragsten inquired whether Autumn Ridge, as
9
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
indicated on the plans, is already constructcd.
.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, Inc., answered that the entrance stubbed in from Autumn Ridge
to the residential area shown on the plat is currently there. Weinand indicated that it
doesn't work for Outlot A to share an entrance point with Wal-Mart. Weinand clarified
that Autumn Ridge as shown has been constructed. Weinand stated that Wal-Mart did not
want to purchase Outlot A. Dragsten noted that the elimination of the Outlot A access
could impact the usability of that parcel.
frie indicated that due to the necd for resolution of the access items and the need for
revision in other plan areas, revised plans should be submitted. Frie asked staff if those
issues could he resolved and plans submitted prior to Council. Grittman stated that it is
common that not all recommended altcrations arc portrayed, in trying to accommodate
developer's schedule. However, Grittman noted that any items on which staff and
applicant disagree will be resolved before going to Council. Frie inquired whether that
also applied to grading, drainage and utility issues. Grittman stated that the City Engineer
has reviewed the plans and has made comments as part of an on-going process.
Frie asked Winter about the proposcd hours of operation. Winter indicated that they
would seek to be open 24 hours and she didn't sec anything in code to prohibit this. Patch
indicated that was correct.
.
Frie inquired how the escrow for the sidewalk would be determined. Grittman replied that
the engineers had done an initial estimate. The final estimated costs still need to be
determined. Winter stated that they have requested that the condition requiring escrow he
revised to require the security at the time of building permit rather than at final plat. Frie
wondered if statl was comfortable having a set amount for escrow on record. Grittman
stated that number couldn't be provided without input from the City Administrator and
Engineer.
Carlson questioned whether the turn-around for truck traffic shown helps prevent vendors
from using an alternate route through the site. Winter stated that it does; store managers
are firm on that point. Additionally, there is directional signage at all truck access points.
Spartz inquired whether measures had been taken for leakage purposes in regard to having
a storm water pond located near the gas station. Jared Morris, project engineer, stated
that no specific environmental design had been put in place specifically for leakage. As
significant leakage is unlikely. Winter added that Murphy Oil, who will be operating that
station, will have to answer that question during review of drainage plans.
Spartz rcquestcd fcedback from the applicant on stail's recommendation to extend
parking delineators at the Cedar Street center entrance. Winter proposed extending only
the in-hound island ten spaces, as that was the area of concern. Grittman stated that is
satisfactory. frie clarified the resulting loss would he 10 spaces rather than 22 spaces.
.
10
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01l04
.
Spartz also expressed concern about the future proposal for Outlot A. Spartz stated that
the proposed residential use may contliet with a 24 hour operation and that off-peak truck
shipments could be a conflict. Patch indicated that the 50 foot landscaped huiTer
standards would help ease the conflict. Patch stated that the trailer walls are also screened
with masonry walls for a visual and noise barrier.
Posusta questioned why Wal-Mart would be responsible for the extension of Cedar Street.
Grittman clarified that Wal-Mart is responsible for the extension only to the south portion
of their property. The alignment for the street has not been finalized yet.
Posusta inquired what other measures could be taken to improve aesthetics on the School
Boulevard elevation. Winter stated that they could change entry features, adding more
detail similar to front entrances. 'I'hey are also open to adding paint detail. Michael
Semrick, project architect, replied that there would also be a significant amount of
landscaping present on that side. Posusta indicated that he would like the store elevation
to be more similar to lnver Grove Heights example provided. Winter stated they are
willing to work with City on elevation.
.
Posusta also noted the concern about noise issues for the existing Autumn Ridge
development. Winter responded that the development is 360 feet from the Wal-Mart
property. Additionally, the property is and was zoned for commercial use. Winter stated
that a minimal number of trucks, estimated at only 10-12 per day, combined with
landscaping and wall screening docs mitigate the noise. Weinand also noted the existing
berm along the Autumn Ridge development.
frie inquired if the lnver Grove store was a SuperCenter. Winter indicated it was not.
Frie asked about truck traffic concern in that example. Winter stated they had not heard
any negative comments.
Posusta stated that he believed that right and left turn lanes with islands were needed on
School Boulevard. O'Neill indicated that a median is an option being considered by statT
and the applicant, in conjunction with limiting truck traHic to one entrance. Posusta
indicated that it is important that access points and traffic issues be addressed.
Posusta questioned whether once the population of the City reaches 10,000, Wal-Mart
would be able to sell liquor. Winter stated that they believe that option is governed by
state law. O'Neill stated that he believes there is also some measure of local control, due
to the City being given the authority under legislation to issue permits for off~sale liquor.
MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAf FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION,
BASED ON A FINDING THAT TilE LAND USE PATTERN IS CONSISTENT
WITII THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS
NOTED BY STAFF; RECOMMENDING REMOV AL OF LETTER D:
11
.
.
d.
e.
f.
'"
O'
h.
1.
.
j.
k.
I.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
a. The applicant is to submit revised plans showing the sidewalk along Cedar Street to
be five feet in width and both of the sidewalk along Cedar Street and the sidewalk
along School Boulevard I foot offofthe property line.
b. The sidewalk along School Boulevard is to be extended to the east, the length of the
plat.
c. An escrow for future street, sidewalk, lighting, and utility extension along Cedar
Street the length of the plat is to be submitted to the City prior to building permit
approval.
An alternative paving surface shall be used in front of the Wal~Mart main entrance in
the areas shown in the May ISth set of plans as painted crosswalk.
Color, detail or additional landscape screening is to be added to the rear and School
Boulevard fa~ade .
Xccl Energy must review all landscaping within the overhead powerline easement.
The landscape plan must be revised as necessary.
The photometric plan is to be revised to show any lighting within the canopy area.
Lighting within the canopy area shall consist of canister spotlights with no portion of
the light source or future extending below the bottom face of the canopy.
The site plan is to be revised to identity a trash enclosure constructed of similar
building material as the principal structure, screened from view of neighboring
properties, with adequate access for garbage trucks. An interior or attached trash
room is the preferred design.
The site plan is to be revised to reduce the number of access points onto School
Boulevard and Cedar Street from the site from three to two.
The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
m. Additional comments from City Staff.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN, WHO AMENDED THE MOTION TO
INDICATE THAT LETTER.r IS TO BE REVISED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION
OF DEUNEA TED TURN LANES IF TIIREE ACCESS POINTS TO SCIIOOL
BOULEY ARD ARE TO BE ALLOWED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AMENDED 7/6/04: WILLIAM SPARTZ ABSTAINING FROM THE MOTION.
O'Neill clarified that Cedar Street would retain three access points from the site.
.
12
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 104
MOTION BY DRAGTSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROY AL OF THE REQUEST
FOR CUP ALLOWING DRIVE THROUGH RETAIL SALES; MOTOR FUEL
DISPENSING; MINOR AUTO SERVICE; OPEN/OUTDOOR SALES;
CONVENIENCE FOOD; JOINT PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES; COMMON
SIGN PLAN, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH -fIlE
CRITERIA FOR CUPAPPROV AI, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS OUTUNED BY STAFF:
.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
0
O'
. h.
1.
The entrance to the drive-through pharmacy is to be revised to show both an in- and
out-bound lane.
The applicant must submit detailed plans of the canopy.
The architectural design and color of the canopy must be similar to that ofthe
principal building.
The face of the canopy must not be illuminated and shall not include extensive color
banding that contrasts with the building color.
Lighting from the canopy area must not exceed I foot candle as measured from the
centerline of an adjacent street.
No outdoor storage is allowed for this use.
Adequate provisions must be made to control noise generated by uses on the east side
of the building.
The applicant must identify any additional locations planned to be utilized for
outdoor sales.
The southern island partition located off of the main entrance otf of Cedar Street is to
be extended to the east allowing for adequate stacking area and visual appeal to the
entrance, eliminating a total of 10 parking stalls.
J. The applicant must submit plans for any signage to be located on the canopy over the
motor fuel expensing area.
k. Compliance with recommendations of the City Engineer, City stall and Council
member Posusta, noting the items relating to enhancement of architectural design.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AMENDED 7/6/04: WILLIAM SPARTZ ABSTAINING FROM THE MOTION.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept
stage commercial planned unit development and a request to re-zone from I-I and 1-2
(Light and Heavy Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: Ryan Companies,
U.S., Inc.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that Ryan Companies is seeking a concept
.
13
Planning Commission Minutes-06/O 1 /04
.
PUD approval to accommodate a shopping center dcvelopment west of County
Highway 18 along thc castcrly extension of ill Street.
Grittman noted that several transportation improvements are necessary in the area to
allow this project to proceed, including thc construction of a new interchange at
CSAH 18 and Interstate 94, the extension of ih Street to interscet with CSAH 18, and
connection of the ih Street extension across the railroad to intersect with County
Highway 75 (Broadway). Grittman stated that the City is working with MnDOT and
the County on the interchange project, and the railroad crossing concept is in progress
as well. The developer would be responsible for extcnding ih Street through the
project area.
Grittman rcviewed the concept plan components, indicating that the project itself
consists of three large retailers and as many as 7 additional freestanding retail and/or
restaurant buildings. Grittman relayed that the potential uscs for these properties
include restaurant, retail, and banking.
Grittman stated that the concept plan provides a basic layout for the dcvelopment,
identifies access driveway locations, and suggcsts parking lot size and circulation.
From a general layout standpoint, the site would appear to function reasonably well.
.
Grittman explained that more significant detail will come at development stage.
However, Grittman outlined comments in consideration for the Developmcnt Stage
PUD. These comments included a notation that the parking lots contain more than
2,100 parking spaces, 1,800 of which are contained in the threc principal lots serving
the large stores. Orittman eommentcd that Planning stafT would suggest more
landscaping within the parking fields, as well as a consistent line of tree planting
along the fronts of the buildings. Additionally, stall would encourage landscaping
along the north, "back", walls of the primary buildings will help to enhance the view
ofthc projcet from Broadway, due to the high visibility of this wall and high levels of
traffic on this route.
Grittman also recommended that the developer carefully consider pedestrian access
through the site, noting that pathway along ih Street, as well as along County 18,
should be examined.
Grittman also stated that the comments of City Enginccring and Public Works staff
would be important as thc development moves forward. The engincers will look at
this project very carefully in terms of future interchange plans.
Staff recommends approval with comments as noted and the understanding that further
comments will be forthcoming from staff and the Planning Commission. Grittman
reported to the Commission that the applicants have communicatcd well with staff on this
and the 1~94 interchange project.
.
14
Planning Commission Minutes-061O 1 /04
.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Ken Streeter, Winnetka Circle, Brooklyn Center, addressed the Commission on behalf of
the Dahlheimer and Bondhus properties. Streeter noted the presence of both John
Bondhus and Joe Dahlheimer and representatives from Ryan Companies, the developer.
Streeter expressed that his only concern was that there was no formal report from Public
Works and the City Engineer. O'Neill explained that due to the close working
relationship on the interchange project, the City Engineer and Public Works Director had
indicated that they conceived the concept plan to be feasible.
Sandy Hagerty spoke to the Commission on behalf ofthc St. Ben's Senior Center.
Hagerty requested that if the concept plan is approved, the Planning Commission be
cognizant in future considcrations of St. Ben's status as a senior center. Hagerty
specifically requcsted that the developer consider a trce line between the properties.
Streeter responded, stating that they would be sensitive to that. Streeter noted that the
concept plan shows an orientation that has the least amount of impact on neighboring
properties. Streeter also commented that in response to the Church's request, they had
modified the drive aisle as requested. They would like to stay in contact with neighboring
property owners throughout the proccss to addrcss any possible issues.
.
Frie asked if the developcr was aware of that rcsponsibility for ih Street construction
costs. Streeter indicated that thc ih Street alignment and finance details are understood.
Dragsten inquired about the timeframe for the interchange and ramps. Streeter deferred to
City staff, stating that it was his understanding that construction scheduled to commence
2005 and complete as late as early 2006. Strceter explained that they would time their
construction with interchangc. Dragsten asked who would be responsiblc f(H the cost of
thc interchange construction. O'Neill indicated that the goal is to present a finance plan
for thc project at the June 28th Council mceting. He stated that the primary developers
around the project havc agreed to pay their share. Dragsten asked if there would be any
federal funding. O'Neill indicated that the funding would be state and local.
Fric inquired about the shape of the interchange and the curve and gradc changes that had
been originally proposed. Posusta indicated that straightcning the curve had becn
eliminated from thc plan. Posusta remarked that thc "f()lded diamond" shape proposed for
the interchange rcsults in morc developable land and less required funding.
Hilgart askcd if the dcvcloper could comment on thosc businesscs proposed for the site.
Strectcr indicated that he is unable to comment on that matter at the present time.
Frie expressed appreciation f()r the dctailed development plans, noting that the issues
outlincd by staff would need to be addressed at the ncxt stage. Streeter agreed and statcd
.
15
Planning Commission Minutcs-06/O I /04
.
they would work with staff on the rear favade with the understanding that the steep terrain
may prohibit some landscaping.
Posusta inquired whether the City had gained access across the railroad tracks. O'Neill
stated that an agreement is being prepared predicated on the closure of another access. A
verbal agreement had been reached and the actual contract is being drafted.
J learing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT
STAGE PUD FOR RYAN COMPANIES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH
-n IE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, THE USE WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS SITE.
THIS ACTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO GENERAL SITE PLANNING
COMMENTS, AND SUBJECT TO MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS UPON
PRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
O'Neill also clarified that a motion for re-zone on this item would also need to be made.
O'Neill stated that the motion to re-zone the parcel from I-I and 1-2 (Light and Heavy
Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
O'Neill went on record to support re-zoning as it pertains to this particular matter.
.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND REZONING THE PARCEL FROM
FROM I-I AND 1-2 (LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) TO 8-4 (REGIONAL
BUSINESS).
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit fl1f a concept
stage planned unit development in a B-3 district to allow for the interim use of an existing
facility for open and outdoor sales. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello/Denny
Hecker
Grittman reviewed the staff report, indicating that the applicant is seeking a PU D
approval that would permit the interim use of the former D&D Bus property for the
establishment of a Kia automobile dealership.
Grittman explained that the area is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Automobile
Dealerships are allowed uses in the district, but havc a specific sct of criteria for lot
coverage, building size and ratio, site improvemcnts (such as paving, curb & gutter,
landscaping, etc.).
.
16
Planning Commission Minutes-06/OlI04
.
Grittman stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the site with the existing
pole buildings and an expansion of the paved area, but without any other substantial
sitc improvcments at this time. The developer rcquests use of the facilities on a
temporary basis pending dcvelopment of a modern dealership facility within three to
five years. Grittman noted that the developer has indicated that price of the land to
some extent dictates the need to develop the site in a manner consistent with the
Dodge Dealership.
Grittman stated that the purpose of the PUD allowances in thc zoning ordinance are to
accommodate flexibility in the application of zoning standards when the flexibility
leads to a higher level of site design and development quality. Grittman indicated that
it is not clear how that requirement would he met by this request. The City dcvclopcd
the current language applying to automobile dealerships in response to concerns that
large areas of unimproved (or poorly improved) property could be put to car storage
with few building standards, minimal tax base, and negligible employment.
However, Grittman did note that since modification of the code language, other area
dealerships have been built to the new standard.
.
Grittman expressed that if the City believes that this project should be accommodated,
there are topics to be addressed relating to the interim use on the proposed site plan.
These include the term of interim use, proposed sitc plan and consideration of the
north side of the property for future redevelopment of site.
Grittman noted that in this case, the PUD approval would bc contingent on a finding
that future rcdevelopment will be consistent with PUD goals. Grittman statcd that
stail recommend approval with the conditions as outlined, or tabling the request until
a with long-term redevelopment plan is submitted
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Bill Rambo, representative of Denny IIecker Automotive Group, addressed the
Commission. Rambo stated that Denny Heckcr fully intends to build a store at this
location in the future. However, Rambo stated that there are currently no franchises
available; they expect there will be within 3-5 years. For now, Rambo stated that they are
seeking this approval in order to utilize thc space. Rambo clarificd that there will be no
automobile service on thc site.
Frie inquired about the original intent to operatc a KIA dealership on thc site. Rambo
stated that although that is what was originally intended, the site will most likely serve as
an extension of the current Dodgc dealership.
Frie statcd that he is uncomfortable with approving the interim usc, cspecially as related to
.
17
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1104
.
the current building facilities. If an approval is given, Frie indicated he would recommend
an interim usc for a period of 1-3 years.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart indicated that he would also like further definition on thc terms of an interim use
perm it.
Dragsten commented that requiring a security for non-conforming use may encourage
development.
Patch stated that the Commission could consider an interim use permit on a 30 month
term, with one renewal option to be grantcd at the discretion of the City. A condition of
this permit term would requirc security. Rambo indicated he is agreeable to that proposal.
Carlson asked Grittman if it would bc allowable for any other auto sales firm to open a
used car lot in the proposed location. O'Neill clarified that only the cxisting use would
have been allowed. Grittman stated that the request is a non-conforming use for this zonc.
Carlson asked if thc buildings can be made to conform. Neithcr staff nor Rambo consider
this a possibility.
Spartz also exprcssed concern regarding the non-conforming use and the time frame for
an interim use approval.
.
Frie asked if the property had bcen purchased based on the decision of the Commission.
Rambo stated that it had not.
Posusta stated that utilizing the current structures for automobile sales isn't conducive in
today's sales market. Thereforc, the applicants will most likely make improvcments in a
relatively short matter of time. Posusta also noted that Dcnny Hecker would be
constructing a new building in an arc a where it is needcd.
Patch and Fric briefly discussed a 30 month term versus a 3 year term. frie also asked
if a performance bond or security amount needs to bc set. Patch stated that under the
conditions as listed, the amount could be determined by staff.
MOTION BY CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of THE CONCEPT
STAGE PUD ALLOWING THE INTERIM USE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 MONTHS,
WITH AN OPTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 30 MONTH EXTENSION, SUBJECl'
TO RESOLUTION OF AND ADI IERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS AS LIS'fED.
PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROV AL BY THE CITY
PLANNER.
Dragsten amended the motion to removc Condition I, which requires the submission of a
future development plan.
.
18
.
.
.
Planning Commission M i nutes-06/0 1 /04
a,
Timerrame for the interim use,
b, Amount and type of security to be posted to ensure removal of non-conformities at the
termination of the interim use and to assure completion of interim improvements such as
landscaping and paving.
c, Drainage concerns as currently drawn - the site is proposed to drain the new paving area onto
open space north of the buildings,
d, Provide definition of the use of unpaved areas,
e, Site lighting,
f. Organization of customer and employee parking, and acceptable areas for vehicle display.
g, Utility service issues to be identified by Public Works and Engineering staff.
h, Potential signage size and location, and enforcement provisions for illegal temporary signage.
AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
10.
Consideration to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum fence setbacks and maximum fence heights on
parcels with multiple street frontages.
Patch provided the stafTreport, indicating that as exampled this evening, there are
problems with fencing on lots with double frontages, Patch explained that the 15' setback
requirement consumes a lot ofland as it relates to the construction of a privacy fence.
Patch believes that it may be unnecessary to require a setback on both streets. Patch
indicated that the setback could possibly be reduced to 6', with a requirement that
additional landscaping be provided on the side facing the public street. In any case, Patch
stated that the fence may obstruct view. Patch noted that a provision for this situation
could be written in to the code, allowing a case by case consideration,
Frie commented that adjusting the ordinance could help eliminate similar cases as the
Quinn request from being brought before the Commission,
Dragsten stated that fence height should also bc considered as it relatcs to safety concerns.
Posusta asked how far sidewalks would be set inside from the curb. Patch responded that
in most cases it is 10' from the back of curb to the inside of sidewalk.
Patch cited School Boulevard as an example of a location where the fences exceed the
19
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
ordinance for setback and height.
Posusta inquired whether the City could require maintenance-free fencing for those that
front streets. Patch stated that alliences are subject to a certain amount of degradation.
However, the homeowner is responsible for area all the way to the back of curb. Patch
stated that imposing material requirements on homeowners is most likely not an option.
Dragsten stated that controlling landscaping height due to visibility issues is critical.
Hilgart agreed, noting that landscaping can also cause a visibility problem.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN
ORDINANCE CHANGE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2 ITEM IF! Of
THE MONT'ICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FENCES.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11.
Public lIcaring - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a multi-tenant
building directory sign as allowed by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: John
Komarek
Patch reviewed the staif report related to the request, noting that the application had been
accepted although it had come in a bit late. Patch noted that any approval is subject to
review and approval by DA T.
Patch stated that the applicant proposes to construct a monument sign utilizing the
existing pole structure from the fonner pylon sign. The new monument sign would be
approximately 12 feet in height and 9 feet 8 inches in width. The total area of sign
placards on the monument sign would be approximately 23 square feet. A concrete
landscape block planter consistent with the planters constructed on Walnut Street will
surround the base of the sign.
Patch reported that the overall area of signs on the monument sign is within the
allowable area for pylon signs but in the monument sign format is slightly larger than
would otherwise be allowed. Patch related that as a concession to allow the slightly
largcr monument sign and take advantage ofthc cxisting sign structure, the applicant
has indicated that no other signs ineluding wall signs will be erected on the property.
The existing sign poles provide an outline of the size of the proposed monument sign.
Patch stated that as such, thc scale of the proposed sign appears to be reasonable and
that sign materials are acsthetically consistent with the ncwly remodeled building.
20
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1/04
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
I Jcaring no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten questioned why staff rccommended not allowing the tenant additional signagc.
Patch stated that restriction had come dircctly from the ordinance.
Carlson asked what would happen to the sign in the scenario that one tcnant took two
spaces in the building. Patch stated that mattcr would have to be addressed separately; it
currently is not the situation for this rcquest.
O'Neill inquired about lighting request for the sign. Patch stated that the applicant hasn't
specified any special lighting needs, so Patch is assuming that external lighting will be
used. It may be the casc that the sign is not lightcd at all. Frie asked Patch to follow up
on the lighting matter, especially for DAT.
MOTION BY HILGART '1'0 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
TIlE ISSUANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED FOR
THE ERECTION OF A MONUMENT STYLE BUILDING DIRECTORY SIGN 118
WEST 6TH STREET SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. The owner of the building shall apply for a sign permit and pay all associated fees.
2.
No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign on each side of the proposed
monument sign.
3. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total allowable sign area on the monument sign.
4. In the event that one tenant ofthe building does not utilize the full allotment of
allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way
transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-
five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs.
5. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be
considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the
requirements thereof.
6. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination.
7. Subjeetto the recommendations and approval of OAT.
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a
concept stage planned unit devclopment in a B-3 district. Applicant: HolidayStation
Stores/Wendy's
21
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06!OlI04
13.
No action required as thc item has been withdrawn.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a rcquest to amend the R-l A zoning district
design standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
Grittman provided the staff rcport, stating that in working on the Hillside Farm
project, the City had negotiated a requirement for R-l A homes that would require a
minimum above-grade finishcd square footage of 2,200 square feet. The current
rcgulations require at least 1,400 square feet of foundation size, and 2,000 square feet
of finished floor area, some of which may bc a walk-out or look-out basement space.
Grittman indicated that if the Planning Commission is interested in carrying the
above-grade standard over to other R-IA lots, staff has prepared a draft amendment
that would accomplish this objective.
However, Grittman stated that for the most part, planning staff believes that this issue
would not become a concern. Grittman noted the unique character of the Hillside
Fann plat, which was permitted to proceed with R-l sized lots and R-IA sized homes.
In this case, the required home size outgrew the lot dimensions, and the developers
suggested that higher valued homes could be built on the smaller lots if they were
permitted to reduce the foundation size, but increase the above-grade square footage.
Grittman stated that the amendment would add some protection from concern that
there may be split entry homes constructed on R-IA lots. Howevcr, Grittman noted
that the 2,200 square foot above-grade standard really only works if the City permits a
reduction in the foundation size for two-story homes. The change could result in a
dominance of two-story homes on smaller foundations, a change that the City should
be comfortable with before making the change in the language.
Overall, Grittman indicated that stafT is reluctant to recommend an amendment without
allowing a "true" R-l A development to progress under the current standards.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Ilearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Frie also agreed with Grittman' s analysis on having not yet dcalt with true R-I A
developments. hie noted that in fact, when the regulations were adopted, no one argued
them or objected. Frie stated that an amendment may be premature.
Hilgart disagreed on the basis that he believes thcre are loopholes in the code that would
allow split level homes that are 1400 square feet upstairs and 600 square feet downstairs.
Hilgart commented that perhaps splits should not even be allowed in an R-l A
dcvelopment. Grittman replied that the market will guide R-l A areas in terms of the type
22
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1/04
and value of homes built within the zone due to the cost of development and
corresponding lot costs. Grittman noted the likelihood that a $150,000 home would be
built on a $100,000 lot is slim. Frie asked Hilgart how he would change the code. Hilgart
stated that perhaps each type of home needs a finished square footage requirement.
Dragsten agreed that he would like to see how the code truly works before amending it.
Carlson also stated his belief that the code should remain as written for now. Carlson
asked if there is a demand from developer to get more lots. For example, Carlson cited
newer neighborhoods where the houses of high value are on smaller lots. Orittman stated
that the market is somewhat limited for those types of developments, which is why the
code outlines the large lot R-IA designation.
Spartz stated that he sees both sides of the issue, but he would like to see in reality what
the ordinance will do, and where the loopholes actually appear.
Frie asked if this item can come back for re-examination by the Commission. Grittman
stated that it could; Carlisle Village will be the first test ofa true R-IA development. Frie
inquired whether there were any other R-IA developments in progress. O'Neill replied
that Spirit Hills and the Paumen East property were R-l A developments.
No further action taken.
14.
Update on Sunset Ponds Building Standards
Frie stated that agents had come to him with photographs of two-car garage homes in
Sunset Ponds. Frie requested clarification on zoning for the development and whether 3-
car garages were required. O'Neill stated he didn't believe 3-car garages were required,
although it was approved as a PUD, which may have set up some separate building
requirements, especially in the R-2A district. Grittman responded that the development
contains R-I and R-2A single-family designations, which allow for 2-car garages.
15. Adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT BY DRAOSTEN.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully Submitted,
)"
--,