Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-03-2004 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 3rd, 2004 6:00 P.M. Staff: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, and William Spartz Richard Carlson, Lloyd Hilgart Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman. NAC, and Angela Schumann Members Present: Members Absent: Council Liaison: I. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, declaring a quorum of the Commission and noting the absence of Commissioners Hilgart and Carlson. 2. Approval ofthe minutes ofthe regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesdav. July 6th. 2004. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 6TH, 2004. . MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizen comments. Chairman Frie explained that due to a missed deadline for publication of notification of public hearings, the Planning Commission would not be holding public hearings on the agenda items. Instead, the Commission would make a recommendation on the agenda items to the City Council based on the provided staff reports and input from applicants. The required public hearings will be held at the upcoming City Council meeting on August 9th. 5. Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit, Simple Subdivision and Variance to create two single~family residential lots in the Central Community District. Applicant: Dennis James Custom Builders Grittman presented the staff report, stating that Dennis James Custom Builders is seeking approval of a subdivision to create two single family residential lots in the CCD zoning district. Grittman explained that a Conditional Use Permit is also required to allow for ground floor residential units in this district. A variance had also been listed in the application materials due to concern over lot width. Grittman stated that because the CCD does not have minimum lot standards, no variance will be needed. . Grittman indicated that the zoning for the Central Community District requires that proposed ground floor residential units be consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe Downtown Revitalization Plan, that the proposal does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 . traffic in the district, and that density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet oflot area, exclusive ofland area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. Grittman indicated that the applicant's proposal creates two 66 foot wide single family lots. These lots would be consistent with the original plat lot size, and would accommodate single family homes. The site plan provided illustrates two building pads with 30 foot front yard setbacks and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The site is within the original plat, where the City has allowed for side yard setbacks of 6 feet to accommodate garage expansion on the narrower lots. Therefore, Grittman recommended that these lots utilize a 6 foot side yard setback rather than 10 foot, and apply a house design that avoids the garage~forward layout to de~emphasize automobile parking and visibility. Grittman noted that the Revitalization Plan calls for a mix of uses in the downtown core, including all types of residential use. Grittrnan stated that the requested use is compatible with the neighborhood, as other residential uses can be found, including ground floor multiple family units and single family homes. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval ofthe CUP and subdivision based on these conclusions. Oragsten inquired whether other lots in the area are 66 feet. Grittman stated that those on the north are, those on the south may not be. Dragsten indicated that should the request be granted, it is important that lot sizes in the area remain consistent. . Frie asked whether the applicant is aware that the planner is requesting 6 foot setbacks rather than the 10 foot setback illustrated. Grittman stated that the applicant understands that possibility. Spartz inquired about the existing building. Grittman clarified that the current structures would be removed. Frie requested that Dennis James be notified of the public hearing at City Council on August 9th. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ORIGINAL PLAT LOTS, AND THAT THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUPPORT MIXED (INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY) USES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSING MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUP REGULATIONS IN THE CCD SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE HOUSING STYLE, INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT NOT USE GARAGE~FORW ARD HOUSE DESIGN, AND THAT THE APPLICANT BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING TO 6 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS. . MOTION SECONDED BY ORAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. ~ 2 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 6. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use permit for a commercial concept stage Planned Unit Development in a B-3 (Highwav Business) district. Applicant: Shingobee BuilderslUBD Development Grittman provided the staff report, outlining current uses on the site and stating that the proposed project consists of 6 potential commercial uses, including a convenience/car wash, quick lube facility, fast food, retail, and restaurant uses. Grittman stated that the plan proposed is concept stage. Therefore, not all of the tenants have been identified. At development stage, some of the building sizes or configurations may flex. Grittman noted items that had been adjusted to improve site design as well as remaining issues identified by planning staff. Grittman pointed out that a central north-south drive provides access to the entire project, connecting Chelsea and Oakwood. The crossing of this drive is reasonably well coordinated, given the differing uses. The sidewalk along the full length of the drive is a significant advantage to this design, facilitating pedestrian trips between facilities, rather than encouraging multiple-stop vehicle trips. Grittman stated that it will be important to enhance this connection with a unified tree-planting and lighting plan that emphasizes the central drive. Grittman stated that the few conflict points would appear to be internal, and should not affect traffic on public streets. The addition of pull-through angled parking between fast-food restaurant No.2 and No.4 should facilitate trailer and truck access from the Cedar Street driveway. The circulation around the Subway appears to be adequate, and parking has been added to the south of the building where the primary entrance is located. Grittman stated that staff encourages the applicant to minimized paved areas, while maintaining parking supply. Grittman commented that parking on the project appears to be close to requirements. If significant changes occur due to building plans that increase parking demands, further plan changes may be necessary. The applicants have illustrated the access to Chelsea as right-in, right-out due to the existing median. No access is proposed to Cedar Street near the intersection, easing previous concerns over congestion at the comer with turning traffic. Grittman stated that a few external circulation issues will require resolution, including concern regarding the westernmost access drive into the Holiday. The Oakwood median will be closed due to previous MnDOT requirements, and right-turn-out traffic will proceed to the east, then U-turn in the street or at the intersection with Cedar Street, wherever the median ultimately ends. Staff believes that large numbers ofU-turning vehicles could create an unsafe condition in heavily traveled areas. Staff has proposed permitting the median to end where traffic could leave this site from the central drive and turn left onto Oakwood. Eastbound traffic on Oakwood would still be able to turn left into the SuperAmerica at this location as well. This issue is still under study by the developer, City Planner and City's engineering consultant. Grittman noted that although signage is not identified at the concept stage, planning staff would encourage a unified approach to signage for the project. .3. . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 Grittman explained that planning staff believe the plan represents a superior design and are recommending approval subject to those comments and noting the remaining Oakwood access issue. Prie inquired about the right of way on Cedar Street. O'Neill indicated that as outlined in the staff report, the issue is being discussed between City staff and the developer. O'Neill stated that it is most likely that the City will charge market rate for the property. Dragsten asked if considerable changes are made to the plan, would the developers need to come back to Commission. Grittman indicated that the development stage application subsequent to concept stage requires that they come back. Significant departures from the current proposed plan would require that, as well. Prie expressed that the proposed plan is very positive for the existing site. Prie asked the applicants ifthey could provide an approximate timeframe for development. He also inquired whether the differing properties were ground lease or purchase, and lastly, whether in requesting a PUD, they had addressed the pros and cons of staff's signage recommendation. Keith McDonald, Shingobee Builders, addressed the Commission, introducing Victor Sacco of Holiday StationStores, and Rick Janssen of Wendy's International. McDonald stated that with approval at Council level, they would like to move to development stage and hopefully begin construction this fall. At this point, the buildings will be ground lease. McDonald stated agreement with staff's desire to have less signage. . Prie asked who would be taking the lead on the project. McDonald indicated that for the most part, Shingobee will take the lead and consult with Wendy's and Holiday. Shingobee will be the overall contractor, creating a cohesive development. Dragsten inquired ofthe developers whether there would be a theme for the architectural style of the buildings. Dragsten also noted that the recommended landscaping would be desirable in creating a unified site. McDonald indicated that staff had requested that they landscape along the sidewalk. It is their intention to comply with that request as mush as possible. They will also try to provide a unified look, while recognizing that each building may have its own look through franchising. Prie inquired whether landscaping will work with the sidewalk. Grittman noted that while the sidewalk reduces the overall area for green space, it provides pedestrian through ways and still leaves opportunities for landscape treatments. Standard PUD enhanced landscape plans win be expected at development stage. Spartz noted that the sidewalk would provide a natural flow through the site. Spartz inquired about Holiday's plans for the store on the other side of the freeway. Sacco indicated that the store would stay. Sacco discussed the potential elimination ofthe Oakwood access in terms of their site and use, stating that they understand there is a problem with right-in, right-out access. Sacco proposed a right-in only with a slip lane. They will work to ensure that this is a safe access, noting that the access is convenient for the user and important to the Holiday site. . - 4.- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 Frie inquired about the distance from the westernmost turn to Highway 25. Frie indicated that it seems easier to swing in, rather than double-back. O'Neill stated that would be true as long as traffic wasn't backed up at the pumps themselves. Sacco indicated that there would be 10 fueling stations, and as such could accommodate a high volume of traffic. O'Neill stated that the engineers will look at the space issues in trying to create a win-win situation. Frie encouraged staff and the developer to work towards a resolution of the issue. Posusta commented that staff's request for a reduction of paved areas seems to be in contradiction to the addition of sidewalk. Posusta also stated that in regard to the portion of Cedar Street right of way, perhaps that City should look at what the piece ofland is currently contributing to the tax base in contrast to helping move along a worthwhile project. Therefore, if it has to be sold, it should be done so at a reasonable price. Frie concurred, inquiring what the City's current policy is. O'Neill stated that the traditional policy is to charge an amount equal to the appraisal value. Council has the authority to make adjustments to the prices as it deems appropriate. Prie asked applicants for their input on the matter. McDonald stated that the project cannot be completed without the right of way. O'Neill stated that in an initial site planning meeting with the developer, staff had identified that all of the area was not needed for City ROW purposes. That analysis led to the ROW's inclusion in the site plan. Frie noted that both sides of the proposed development compliment one another. However, he inquired whether Wendy's and Holiday could move forward without the south portion. Janssen and Sacco indicated that it could. McDonald noted that they have filed for vacation of right of way. The only other critical detail is to work with staff on full access at the intersection in question. Spartz inquired about the parking spots on the northeast side, which seem tighter. McDonald indicated that parking would most likely be used as staff parking. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRlE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT APPEARS TO PRESENT THE POTENTIAL FOR A SUPERIOR PROJECT DESIGN DUE TO THE SHARED ACCESS AND CENTRAL DRIVE CONCEPT, AS WELL AS COORDINATED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, BUILDING DESIGN, PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER SITE PLANNING ELEMENTS, NOTING COMMENTS ON THE INTERSECTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, WITH A NOTATION BY DRAGS TEN TO COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STYLE AMONG THE SIX BUSINESSES. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court, a residential subdivision in an R-l district. Applicant: Quality Builders Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that a full analysis ofthe preliminary plat request - 5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 had been provided in the written report. Grittman stated the cul-de-sac did meet requirements, contrary to the staff report. In terms of setbacks, lot size, density, and landscaping, planning staff has determined that the proposed plat meets the requirements. The City Engineer has provided written comments on the grading, drainage and utility plans. Grittman commented that staff's primary concern relates to the encroachment ofa portion of the Fairhill Lane right-of-way within the adjacent NSP powerline easement. As shown on the submitted preliminary plat, approximately 10 feet ofthe right-of-way encroaches the easement. While it is understood that the street itself is not proposed to be constructed within the easement, a southerly shift of the right-of-way is recommended to avoid potential conflicts relating to future street maintenance. Considering that all lots exceed the minimum area requirements ofthe district, it is not expected that this change will result in the loss of any lots. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Planning staff would recommend revised plans be submitted illustrating the shift. Frie clarified that as the 600' length cul-de-sac meets requirements, a variance hearing is not needed to coincide with the final plat hearing. Grittman indicated that the Parks Commission has not reviewed this plan. The Parks Commission may ask for a cash contribution in lieu of park dedication. Dragsten inquired about Outlot A in terms of drainage purposes. Grittman stated that the City Engineer did not have any substantive comments regarding drainage issues. Prie inquired if this was straight R~1. Grittman replied that was correct. Scott Foley, Quality Builders and Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madsen Engineering, made themselves available to answer questions from the Commission. Frie asked the applicant if they are familiar with the conditions outlined by staff. Adolf indicated that they are aware of the conditions and are in agreement. Adolf stated that they have not yet talked with the Parks Commission. He noted that the neighboring development, Hunter's Crossing, has provided a neighborhood park. Adolfalso explained that Outlot A contains a large power line easement, a majority of which would be conveyed to the City for stormwater ponding. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NATHAN'S COURT, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE AUGUST 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THOSE NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOTION CARRIED. 8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a concept stage Planned Unit Development for 41 detached townhomes in a PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) district. Applicant: UP Development .6- . 9. . . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 Grittman noted that he had spoken with the applicant before the meeting. They indicated that if they were not present at the meeting, they would request tabling of their item to a future meeting. Grittman stated that as they are not present, action to table the request should be taken. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. Dragsten inquired whether there would be any violation of the 60-day rule. Grittman indicated that as a written request to table was also provided, there would be no violation. The request is also not a preliminary plat request, for which the 60-day rule applies. MOTION CARRIED. Carlisle Village Update O'Neill provided an update on the Carlisle Village development. O'Neill stated that the project had received approvals via a PUD and preliminary plat. The final plat for first phase was approved with a caveat that revised plans be provided to ensure that the plans were conducive to the original. In the process of reviewing the revised preliminary plat, it was discovered that some of the lots on the southern boundary do not meet the R-l A requirements. This is most likely die to the fact that acreage along the boundary was reduced. Grittman noted that some ofthe lots along south boundary are 9,000 feet in area and 120 feet deep rather than 15,000 square feet and 175 feet deep. As the R-l A standards have been a special focus of the Commission, O'Neill noted that this may come back as a discussion item. It is staff's view that this is a high amenity area and should be preserved as such. Planning staff will be meeting with the developer to discuss the issue. The Commission can expect another update next month. Frie noted that Mike Gair, the developer's representative, had stated that area would be the higher- end area die to the amenities. Frie hopes that intention can be accommodated. Dragsten inquired whether Shadow Creek is still the owner. O'Neill indicated that they are. Frie asked ifthis would go to Council. O'Neill stated that at this time they are simply seeking Commission's input at this time. Spartz expressed his desire that the developer meet the requirements. Dragsten and Frie concurred. 10. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance rel!ardinl!: a. Topographic survey requirements b. Tree survey requirements c. Final plat submission requirements d. Park dedication requirements Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission - 7 - . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 Grittman provided the staff report, indicating that the items noted for amendment had come up as part ofthe Parks Commission discussion regarding their authority in terms of where parks could be located. Staff has taken those comments, along with other issues that needed to be addressed, in drafting the proposed amendment. Grittman stated that changes to Section 2 on dedication requirements clean up the ordinance for both the City and developers. Grittman noted that the second alternative, which is to apply park dedication based on density is the better standard in terms of what previous court cases deem "reasonable or proportionate demand". Grittman explained that the Parks Commission wanted to make sure they did not have to accept encumbered land. They have that authority given court cases, but they thought it best outlined within the ordinance. Dragsten inquired ifthere is currently a time limit for recording multiple phases of plats. Grittman responded that theoretically, developers have an unlimited amount oftime to file a final plat. The proposed amendment simply sets a limit between preliminary and final. Dragsten's concern is whether three years is ample time to complete a multiple phase development. Grittman stated that it doesn't force developers to build within three years, it just requires them to plat the land, whether it be in outlots or actual lots. Dragsten sought clarification on what the actual recommended amendment to the park dedication was. Grittman stated that the second option, the density clause, is somewhat cleaner and is actually what staff recommends. . Frie asked ifthe dedication ordinance has been challenged. Grittman stated it had been challenged in other areas and the second alternative seems to be what is most consistent with rulings. Posusta asked if the City has discretion whether they take land or money for park dedication purposes. Grittman replied that the City has the sole responsibility of that determination. Posusta asked ifin the case that the City determines that land isn't feasible for park development, they can decide to take cash instead. Posusta stated his concern that the City has proposed some lands for park that are not conducive to parks. Grittman stated first, the City can decide to accept cash or land for dedication, and then ultimately what land is acceptable as parkland. Dragsten expressed concern on the tree survey requirements. Grittman stated it is more of a concern to not have the clause, citing the case of Carlisle Village. The City can always waive the requirement. Dragsten stated that if you are a developer, it would seem you want to keep the trees. Grittman indicated that is not the case, in most cases. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT SUBDIVISIONS NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SUPPORT THIS OBJECTIVE. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN NOTING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8 OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING TREE SURVEYS BE A POINT OF DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL. - 8 - . Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04 MOTION CARRIED. 11. Long-Ranlle Planning Effort: Framework Discussion O'Neill explained that in terms of identitying a scope of study, Grittman would be putting together a summary of what would be needed to properly plan for the future. Subsequent to that, Mayor Theilen is looking at a community visioning process to look at overall goals and the planning process as a whole. O'Neill noted that as such, the long-range planning effort is becoming more comprehensive than just land use. It will be a well-focused community effort. The City Council will be looking at an outline for the process in the near future. Frie requested that open forums be held with all City Commissions. O'Neill stated that they are looking at having a charter group manage the process, soliciting input from many different sectors. O'Neill stated it would be a fa11/winter project. 12. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN TO ADJOURN AT 7:30 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. . . - 9-