Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-03-2001 . . . MINlJTF:S REGULAR MEETING - MONTICF:LLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - April 3, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Absent: S tafT: Robbie Smith .lefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. 2. Chair frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 6. 2001. Chair Frie asked that item 6 of the minutes from March 6, 2001 regarding Rod Dragsten' s motion opposing the denial of the amendment to the ordinance regarding increased size for freestanding and electronic signs. Dragsten clarified his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 6, 2001. Motion carried with Chair Frie abstaining. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Jeff O'Neill updated the Planning Commission on the Jay Morrell ordinance violations stating a letter had been sent noting all violations. along with the appropriate copies of zoning ordinances. Chair Frie asked if any of the members wished to attend the May 10th planning meeting being held in St. Cloud. The members stated they would contact Lori Kraemer if they wished to register for this meeting. O'Neill also added an update on the proposed Amoco site and the parking study that was completed by the John Glomski. Citizens comments. None . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 2c Public Hearing -- Consideration of a rcquest for a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food establishment in the CCD District. Location: 617 Locust Street Shops. Applicant: BBF Properties. Berrv Fluth and Pizza Man. Fred Patch, Building Official, reported that a pizza takc-out and dclivcry business set up their shop at 617 Locust Street. The business did not require a building permit but thc proprietor checked with city stafl anyway to insure that the business could be established in the Locust Street Shops location. A conditional use permit had already been allowed for the Locust Street Shops. The Zoning Ordinance of the City is ambiguous in its language as related to such a business in the CCD District and staff originally concluded that Pizza Man could establish their business without a conditional usc permit. Since that time a similar business has been considered for location in the Town Center Project on Walnut Street. Upon further review of the Zoning Ordinance, staff concluded that it would be best if a conditional use permit was considered by the Planning Commission and allowcd for Pizza Man. Patch advised that the Pizza Man take-out and delivery business as located in the Locust Street Shops meets all required conditions of thc Zoning Code, Section 14B-5 [0] fl)f a conditional use permit to bc allowed. The Planning Commission and the Design Advisory Team have previously given consideration to thc Locust Strcct Shops undcr the original conditional use permit allowed for thc shopping ccntcr. Staff has concludcd that Pizza Man is a compatible use in the CCD District as located in the Locust Street Shops. Allowing Pizza Man to establish a convenience food establishment subject to the terms of a conditional use permit will help to prevent similar cstablishments from locating in areas within the CCD District without Planning Commission Consideration. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and after hearing no comments, the hearing was closed. The members questioncd the othcr restaurant located in the Locust Street Shops, but Patch advised that at the time he did not consider the Pizza Man as a restaurant requiring seating as it is a take-out establishment, but since that time stalThas reconsidered and feel that this type of cstablishmcnt may be considered as a restaurant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD ORAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND ALLOWING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BBF PROPERTIES AND PIZZA MAN TO ESTABLISH A CONVENIENCE FOOD EST ABLISIIMENT IN TIlE CCD DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE ZONING CODE SECl'lON 148-5[0] AS RELATED TO SUCH A BUSINESS. Motion carried unanimously. 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I 6. Consideration of an application for approval of a General Concept Stage Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development (CuP/PUn) to allow the construction of multiple industrial buildings on two lots. Applicant: Blue Chip Development Companv. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising the applicant is proposing the construction of two 14,000 square foot industrial buildings on the property located at 206 Dundas Road. The site currently contains two lots, each of which contains one existing industrial building. Through the PUD process, these two lots may be reviewed as one site. Grittman advised that the land use and zoning for this property are consistent with the expansion of the existing industrial use, architectural renderings and exterior building material information have not been submitted at this time, but will be requested at the development stage. 'fhe proposed development meets the lot and building performanee standards for properties in the 1-2 District. Regarding parking, Grittman stated that at this time the applicant is unable to determine a specific use for the proposed buildings and consequently, staff must use the most intensive parking standards allowed in the 1-2 District. The applicant must demonstrate that the site can provide the required number of off-street parking stalls by: increasing the number of proposed stalls, redueing the size of the proposed buildings, or indicating a use that ean conform with the parking requirements. All stalls must be at least 20 feet long and 9 feet wide. The entire parking area must be surrounded by eontinuous concrete curb and gutter and this curb must be at least 5 feet from any lot line. Also noted was that currently the site has three aceess points along Dundas Road. As designed, the driveway to access the proposed buildings is not aligned with the center curb eut. To facilitate safe and efficient access to the proposed building in the rear of the site, the applieant should relocate the existing center curb eut so it is aligned with the proposed driveway. Grittman advised that all plans for the parking and access area are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The site plan illustrates two loading berths per building. The number and size of these berths are in conlormance with the standards outlined in Section 3-6. However, the turning radiuses f()[ these berths appear tight. The applicant was asked to demonstrate that all berths have adequate maneuvering room for large trucks. The off-street loading area is located on the south side of the proposed buildings and will face the neighboring residential use. The applicant should take special care with landscaping and screening to insure that the loading docks will not have a negative impact on the adjacent residential use. The noise from these docks shall comply with City standards. 3 . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 Grittman advised that given that the applicant is requesting PUD approval with this application, staff suggests that they consider redesign the site's layout. The purpose for a PUD is not only to allow the applicant to place multiple buildings on one lot, but also to create a better and more cohesive development. This could be accomplished by rotating the proposed buildings by 90 degrees. Turning these buildings would move the loading area away from the adjacent residential property, improve the relationship between all f<Hlr buildings, and improve internal traffic movement on the site. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans will be submitted in conformance with the City Code as part of their Development Stage CUP/PUD application. lhe Site Plan includes only minimal landscaping information, and a detailed plan conforming to City Standards needs to be submitted. In addition to this information, the landscape plan must also illustrate a landscape buffer yard as outlined in Section 3-3, Subdivision G. According to the City's Existing Land Use map, the subject property is bordered by a residential usc to the south. The buffer yard must contain 160 plant units per 100 feet of property line. This requirement can be reduced by 50 percent if the applicant installs an earth berm at least five feet in height or an opaque fence. . A lighting or photometric plan will need to be submitted in conformance with the City standards, as well as a revised site plan showing location for a trash enclosure. This trash enclosure must be made of the same materials as the principal buildings. The must also provide sign information as part of their development stage PUD application, showing thc size and location of all proposed signs. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brad Barger, applicant, addressed the commissioners advising that several businesses had approached him looking for building space to lease. Barger also stated that another site plan had becn drawn up by his architect showing the buildings turned at another angle as Grittman requested, but noted that this cannot be determined until uses are determined depending on the tenants who would occupy the spaces. Barger noted that having the buildings face the street also is more appealing to potential tenants if they are looking for the use to be office space, and that they are also waiting for information regarding elevations before they complete the site plans. . A resident at 4899 Stoneridge Lane stated the southeast corner of this residential area was owned by his association and is worried about a barrier to alleviate noise, and also questioned whether the potential occupants would be creating a noise problem at night. Barger noted that some of the companies that have inquired have been warehouses and small manufacturers, and stated he could not state for sure whether there would be any night activity. It was advised by Clint Herbst that this area was zoned Industrial prior to the residential development that came in. Fric also advised the resident that the City has an ordinance for buffer yards and noise, and Grittman later stated there are green space 4 . . . Planning COll1l11ission Minutes - 04/03/01 and planting requirements for this site which are rather intense. Orittman also noted that some bullers require fencing as well and this may be an option. Another resident, John Clinton, had some of the same concerns; also stating that there is an existing business near this location which has no plantings or screening, and has been a concern of the neighborhood for at least a year, although he did state he has contacted the City on this matter and will do so again. O'Neill advised the resident that the business in question was not in compliance with City ordinance and that the problcm is being addressed at this time. Dragsten also stated that the business in question was in place prior to some of the City's ordinances. Chair Frie c10scd the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members with Carlson stating that the orientation of the building is very crucial regarding noise lcvels and adding that if a business such as a machine shop were to occupy the space and have it's overhead doors open in the summer, it may cause increased noise as well, and therefore the orientation of the building would be a factor. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON TI-IE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT, AND SUHJECT TO TIlE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Frie questioned Grittman about the process of a concept stage and Orittman advised the purpose of a PUD and its process and complexity of a projcct, and stated that the problcm with a project being more complcx is that it can cause thc applicant a great deal of money for the design process, therefore the different steps in a PUD noting the concept step is the layout with the idea giving the applicant suggestions before going through a significant amount of engineering and designing costing them extra money. Chair Frie stated that the previous item had 15 conditions that were needed fix approval and yet the Planning Commission still gave approval and Grittman stated that this is typically how the applicant becomes aware of the conditions necessary for final approval, advising that it could still be a good plan, but that the applicant needs to be aware of the stipulations. 1:. Considcration ofa Concept PUD for a Mixed Use Proiect on the Site of the former St. Henrv's Church. Applicant: Cedrus Creek Craftsman. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report advising that Cedrus Creek Craftsman has requested City review of a concept for the re-use of the St. Henry's Church building and property. Grittman stated that part of this area is already zoned PUD and that this concept has some of the same uses as a prcvious applicant's. At this stagc ofthc project, Grittman stated that building and site plans were not yet developed to the point where they could be reviewed with any detail but provided a brief review to help identify the proposed uses and questions which will need to be answered in future review cycles. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . The land uses appear to be similar to thosc originally considered a few months ago by a different developer, although they are rearranged somewhat. From a conceptual standpoint, the developer will need to bc able to address thc capacity of the buildings, and parking to bc dcvcloped in support of the uscs. Since the existing parking lot would be redeveloped as housing, parking in support ofthc performing arts usc would need to be added to the current building site. An issue discussed with the previous proposal related to the access to the site. Staff had encouraged a plan in which tramc, particularly during peak theater use times, would access from the south. This issue would need to be addressed as a part of this project, particularly since the parking location will move. Thc PUD Zoning proposed for the previous project would be applicable for this concept as well, since the land uses arc similar. The rearrangement of land uscs may have some positive effects (better internal relationships of housing development, parking on-site). However, relocation of the parking will raise the issue of access to the site through residential neighborhoods. Without sitc plans, staff could not address these issucs with specificity. The applicant will need to be prepared to resolve them as the project proceeds. It was clarified that all but four lots to the east of this proposed project are zoned PUD. . Chair Frie opcned the public hearing. John Komarek, co-applicant, noted that they arc proposing an expanded campus and utilizing Blocks 21 and 22 as the generator of the project with the ability to clean up some of the existing features and create a neighborhood with possibly 20 to 22 townhomes. The North side of Block 28 is proposed as a mixed density parking/green space, with a potential of 180 parking spaces, a building capacity of 350 to 400 people, which is a downsize of what was proposed in the past. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Some concerns noted by the commissioners were that of parking and access into and out of the area, and stating that the current parish center having potential of office space may create the need for off~street parking. Komerak stated that thc parking would actually bc placed behind the site. Another previous concern was the time of day that performances would be held and Komerak advised that it is too early in the eoncept stage to address that question at this time. Komerak stated that rcgarding parking, it is not the intent to crcate another blacktop area, but rather the possibility of adding a playground, parking, and green space, and Komerak also advised that he would like to utilize the existing green space and utilities for residential use. Again it was noted that the North side of Block 28 would be designated for parking and also stated that there would be a number of traffic flows into and out of the area. . 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDEO BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMENO APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT FOR RE-USE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. HENRY'S CJIURCH AREA, BASED ON A FINOING THAT THE MIXEO USE CONCEPT WOULD BE POSITIVE FOR THE PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES CAN BE AODRESSED AS PART OF TIlE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, Motion carried unanimously, ~ Consideration of an application for a Development StaQe Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminarv Plat to allow the development of a townhouse proiect located on the Klucas property, Applicant: Craig Schreber & Associates, Inc, Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report stating the applicant has applied for a CUP/PUO and Preliminary Plat to allow an 90-unit townhome development. The applicant did not submit a concept plan for review but has mct with staff to discuss thc development. Thc proposed town home land use is consistent with the zoning for the property; the surrounding land uses are industrial to the west, an NSP training facility to the north, a single-family residential use to the east, and Interstate 94 to the south; thc proposed 90 units would create a density within this area of 6,6 units per acre which is an appropriate density for medium density residential development and thc plan illustrates a minimum setback of 30 feet from all property boundaries and therefore, the setbacks from property boundaries are compliant. A buffer yard is required along the western boundary of the site between the proposed residential land use and the existing industrial use. A residential use next to an industrial use is considered a sevcre type of conf1ict that requires a minimum building sctback of 50 feet, a minimum landscape yard of 40 feet, and a minimum of 160 plant units per 100 fect of property line. A thick band of evergrecn trees already exists on the industrial propcrty along the property line; therefore the residential development is required to install half the width and intensity of the required buffer yard, The density of planting is high with 147 trees along the west boundary or 156.5 plant units per 100 feet. The proposed butfer yard is adequate given the existing screening on the industrial sitc, The proposed project also meets the general standards rcgarding building spacing and hcight, building elevations and floor plans wcre submittcd. The property gains access from Marvin Elwood Road in the northeast corner of the property and a cul-de-sac and road extension to Prairie Road is also planned at the south end of the site to provide a second access, The site plan shows the road being extended to the approximate existing end of Prairie Road. In previous discussions staff asked the applicant to look at the possibility of connecting the northern two dead-end streets to provide greater connectedness between units, The applicant has decided not to connect these two streets due to space limitations. Instead, the applicant should provide turn- 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . around space at thc end of each driveway. Grittman also advised of the strect and private drive widths, parking units which exceed requirements, additional guest parking, landscaping requirements regarding number of trees are also exceeded and staff recommends that trees be added or rearranged slightly to provide better screening along the east and south property lines. The submitted landscape plan contains a variety of cvergreen and deciduous trees. The majority of trees are located along the western property line to provide screening of the industrial site to the west. Evergreen trees are grouped along Marvin Elwood Road on cither side of the entrance to the development. Evergreen trees are also scattered along the eastern boundary between the proposed development and the single-family dcvelopment to the east. StatJ recommends that larger groups of evergreen trees be planted along the east boundary to break up views betwcen the two developments and provide some screening of private backyard spaces. Shade trees are spaced along the internal streets throughout the development. Screening is not proposed along the south property line. A proposed stormwater pond provides some separation between the development and Interstate 94; however, vegetative scrcening would also be desirable along the south property line. The landscape plan must bc revised so that at least 14 of these proposed trees meet the 3.5 inch size requirement. . Grading and utilities plans have bcen submitted and are subject to City Engineer review and approval; applicant is required to enter into a development agreement with the City; applicant must submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review, which addresses such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. Staff had recommended that trash collection areas be created along the main drive as is shown on the plan to allow the easiest pick-up for the trash collectors. However, the resolution of the issue of how to design trash pick-up in developments with dead-end private streets has evolved. The City Council has now indicated that they would like to see hammer-head turnarounds with individual trash collection for each unit in situations like this. This will prevent residents from having to haul their trash to the end of the block, which may be over 300 feet away. Rcgarding the hammerhead drives, City Council recently approved these at a prcvious meeting regarding a request from Eagle Crcst Northwest, and Chair Frie questioned if the hammerheads were adequate for garbage and firetrucks, and it was stated that they were and that this is also being reviewed by the City Enginccr & Public Works Director. . Therc was discussion rcgarding the buffer yard and landscaping on the east side which abuts the residential area, and Rod Dragsten stated that this site is opcn and recommends that the buffer be placed on the other sidc. 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Gair, MFRA, provided additional information, noting there is a change in topography by about 10 feet on the industrial side on the western edge. Eastern side is residential with bike trails/pathways, and parks which arc attributes to this site. He provided exhibits showing their survey of the site and noting that afler review, it was decided to keep the housing inside the green space with entry from Marvin Elwood Road, and stating that 46(10 of the site is common open space with good access to the trails and streets. Gair advised that thcy will incorporate the 3 W caliber trees required; also showed where they relocated approximately 12 coniferous trees to the south to provide additional screening, as well as relocating about 7 conifers from a norther point and placed along the southern edge. Also clusters will be placed along the eastern edge that originally were put in for garbage collection sites no longer needed due to the installation of the hammerheads. Gair stated they are working with NSP to have lighting at each of the key entrances and one at the far west of the open space. Chair Frie asked how soon the homeowner rulcs and bylaws could be submitted and Gair stated they could submit this information as soon as possible if nccessary. . A resident at 307 Marvin Elwood Rd, questioned how much space there would be from the backside of the townhomes to his garage, stating he felt it looked somewhat cramped. Gair noted it would be 30 n at closest, which is well in excess of the City's ordinance, again noting they intend to keep this development as open as possible; landscaping spaced typically 15 to 20 feet on center, and Oair stated there were no trees put at this resident's particular site but that they could be added. Gair also advised that the units are owncr/occupied homes with double stall garagcs and a particular Hoor plan that is split. The resident also noted his concern regarding the lack of maintenance of other developments in that area and it was noted that this would be addressed by the bylaws. A resident at 226 Crocus Lane, Lot 3 Block 3, whose front yard overlooks this project, felt that the density was too large stating the landscaping between east/west is just trees and no bcrm, although therc is a natural sloping, and the resident was concerned about people wandering through this area. The resident also stating he just sces a handful of trces to the freeway site and Oair advised that staff had requested more plantings and that this would be done. Gair also stated there are 271 plantings which averages 3 per unit and the density is wcll within the ordinance. Gair advised that Outlot A is a common open space of 148 x 114 ft with parking availability to the area and additional groups of open areas which could be used as play/recreation areas and stated that 46% of the development is open/common space to accommodate outdoor recreation. . A resident at 222 Crocus Lane, also had concerns with the density of the project and questioned the cost of these units, stating his concern if they werc startcr homes and the 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . possibility of them not being kept up. Gair stated his offense to this resident's implications that these townhomes would bring in residents that would not take care of their homes and that there would be an overabundance of children running around in this area. The concerns of the residents were somewhat alleviated when advised that the value of the units would be in excess of $150,00 per unit. A resident at 235 Crocus Lane asked about opening the road to Prairie Rd and asked about the entrances to this development. She also asked about the possibility of installing a chain link fence along the back side and Gair stated they had not considered it. A resident at 211 Crocus Lane, questioned emergency vehicle access to this development and Gair stated that the primary road is a 30 ft wide road, which is actually the Plymouth Fire Code standards; and also asked if soil samples had been taken and Gair stated this would be addressed. John Smith, GM of Electro Industries, questioned whether there would be fencing on the west side as trees have been more of a deterrent with vandalism, and he would rather have a fence put in. Gail' stated that it is not in the present proposal. . Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Richard Carlson gave a brief background on this property that years ago it was set up for larger density with large apartment buildings, but because it was not adjacent to or close to downtown, it was felt that it was not appropriate at that time, so it was downsized to townhomes/duplexes versus what could have put in. Dragsten felt that John Smith had brought up a good point regarding pine trees versus fencing near the bulk oil refinery. Jeff Michaelis, 630 E 4th St, owner of Riverside Oil, noted the trees are very far off the property lines and he also has concerns with the possibility of vandalism, stating the fire department had previously been cal1ed to that area after kids had started fires in those trees. He would also like to see some type of fencing versus the trees. Chair Frie asked if Michaelis' property was secured with fencing and Michaelis stated it was not. Michaelis also stated that moving the trees could hurt his ability to expand his property in the future as it reduces the setbacks. He also felt the screening on the west should be put back. Gair stated there will still be a solid edge of trees and that they are only removing a portion of the second row of trees, again stating that the quantity of trees required by ordinance is met, and the open area that Michaelis talked about will be landscaped. Grittman explained the reason for the setbacks of housing and landscaping, as this is adjacent to undeveloped property. . A MUflON WAS MADE BY ROY POPlLEK AND SECONDED BY RICIIARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 7, BASED ON THE FINDlNG THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT wrn-I CONDITIONS, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TILE CITY'S 10 Planning Commission Minutes.. 04/03/01 . ZONING ORDINANCE. Motion carried unanimously. There was further discussion by Rod Dragsten of his preference to have a fence installed on the west side of the proposed project. 9. Consideration of an application for a Development Stal;!e Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to allow a mix of commercial uses. Applicant: Dan Mielke. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising the background and existing conditions regarding the applicant's request for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow a mix of commercial uses. The City Council approved a concept stage PUD for this site at their November, 2000 meeting. The City Council also approved the vacation of a portion of Cedar Street from Chelsea Road to Oakwood Drive as requested by the applicant contingent upon approval of the development and final stage PUD and associated plat by the Council. . Grittman provided a brief review of the proposed development stating that the proposal relies on Planned Unit Development "PUD" flexibility since much of the project would share parking between parcels and utilize common driveways without separate landscaped areas between parking lots. Grittman also stated that the applicant meets the required setbacks except for the rear yard, Cedar Street, which the applicant states they need flexibility for construction of the proposed gas/convenience store and the gas station canopy. He also advised that the off- street parking setback is compliant; however, f1exibility is requested from the curbing setback standard for the drive lanc for the fast food restaurant to be reduced from the requircd 5 feet to 0 feet along Chelsea Rd, as well as the drive lane for gas/convenience store to be reduced from the required 5 fcet to 0 feet at the Chelsea/Ccdar Street corner. Grittman advised that building elevations and floor plans have not been submitted and outlined the required and proposed parking, noting that the total required spaces are 187 and the applicant has proposed 179. While the PUD process would permit the City to waive the need for the additional spaces through a shared parking concept, staff has two primary concerns. First, most of these uses do not have specific peaks which are different enough from the other uses to justify significant departures from the ordinance requirements. The gasoline and oil change facilities have only moderate peak usage times, whereas the restaurants will all peak at the same times. Thus, the overflow from one use will not have an unused parking area on adjacent property to absorb the demand. . Second, the bulk of the parking deficiency occurs on the south half of the site with the convenience store/gas stationlretail site and the new fast food restaurant. If the 1,546 square feet of retail space was eliminated, the required number of parking spaces would be reduced from 30 to 22, which would be closcr to the number proposed. This situation . Planning Commission Minutes ~ 04/03/01 is of significant concern since there will be no overflow street parking available. The City has recently experienced the effects of an under-parked restaurant in the downtown area. Grittman explained parking requirements for the proposed uses and how some spaces could be shared, stating that the north half of the site has adequate parking; however, more parking is needed in the south half unless the City grants flexibility from parking standards. The planting plan schedule does not include the number of proposed plants. This must be added. The landscape plan includes deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs concentrated at the periphery of the development. Landscaping along the northern boundary is on the adjacent property and requires the adjacent property owner's permission. However, this will raise an issue for this project, since this development would have limited control of maintenance and/or removal of that material. Grittman stated that the City would request to see written consent from property owners and an arrangement for maintenance of landscaping needs to be handled. He stated that when landscaping is made as a condition of the approval, the appl icant has no authority to cut down and/or take out any landscaping and policing is a problem and tough to enforce. Again Grittman stated that for a PUD design, the City requires enhanced landscaping in exchange for flexibility from other standards. Grittman also noted that no wall sign plans had been submitted and staff recommends the plans be submitted so that the entire sign plan package for the PUD can be evaluated. The PUD contains five lots; therefore, the total allowable sign area allowed for the site is 1,500 square feet. A bonus allowing a "freeway standard sign" (200 sq. ft. in area and 32' high) applies in this case because part of the property is within 800 feet of Interstate 94. The sign is allowed to be 32 feet above the center line of Trunk Highway 25 since that is the street from which the sign gains its principal exposure. Almost none of the proposed signs comply with the minimum five foot setback from any driveway or parking area. . Also provided by the applicant were proposals for freestanding signs. Grittman stated that if the proposed signs were constructed as proposed, the following flexibility from sign standards would be required: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. 7. Increased height of the freeway sign from 32 feet above the center line ofTH 25 to 60 feet. Increased size of the Subway sign from 50 square feet to 72 square feet. Increased size of the Ultra- Lube/l! Itra- Wash sign from 50 square feet to 80 square feet. Increased size of the fast service restaurant from 50 square feet to 60 square feet. Increased size of the c-store sign with fuel pricing from 25 square feet to 64 sq uare feet. Increased size of the c-store sign directional sign from 25 square feet to 37.3 square feet. Increased size of the center entrance sign from 25 feet to 88 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . 8. 9. 10. J ncreased number of signs from 1 to 2 on the c-store/gas station parcel. I ncreased number of signs from 1 to 2 on the fast service restaurant parcel. Decreased setback of pylon signs from any driveway or parking area from 5 feet to 0 feet. At this time, more information on wall signage is necessary to evaluate the compliance of the sign plan with zoning ordinance requirements. Whereas some signage can be combined or shifted under the flexibility proccss of the PUD, thc number and height of the proposed freestanding signs would appear to extend beyond that which the City commonly considers reasonable flexibility. A photometric plan has not been submitted and is required. Details of the type of lighting proposed have been submitted, but locations and fixture height have not been indicated; preliminary grading and utilities plans have been submitted and are subject to City Engineer review and approval. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be requircd to enter into a developmcnt agreement with the City. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke, applicant, and Michael Knisley, architect, provided the concept plan prcviously approved, pointing out the modifications madc to the site plan sincc that time. Mielke stated the size of the retail space located on the west side is for the purpose of marketing and the necds of potential tenants making the parking wrap around. Also adviscd of the modified landscaped area for snow removal stating that they cut the landscaping in half by Ultra-Lube allowing for snow removal as well; sign locations arc the same; widened the main entrance to 26 ft versus 24 ft for better turn radius for emergency vehicles and largc trucks. The applicant also noted that thcre is a shortfall of 12 parking spaces on the site plan stating there will be more seating area in the proposed restaurant versus kitchen area which affects the number of parking spaces; convenicnce store and pump islands are requircd to have 30 parking spaces in that arca but their proposal suggests that the fuel islands themselves comply with parking rcquirements as typically customers fuel up stay parked rather than moving thc vehicle to another spot. . The applicant also discussed shared use of parking stating that a restaurant that is open 24 hours a day has peaks and valleys in rcgard to parking which allows the other facilities the potential to havc access to that opcn parking at those times as well; thcreforc the shared use of parking. Mielke added that thcre is actually more parking and they are larger spaces, 9' x 20', for the traveling public stating they wish to keep larger spaces vcrsus more parking spots. Frie asked about RV's taking up 2 parking spots and Mielke notcd that they had planned for that as previously stated. Mielke noted that the proposed turning spaces are adequate for large delivery vehicles versus the current conditions which are smaller; Knisley also stated the delivery areas were separate and off the main track. The applicant also discussed the building designs not being all the same on these sites as . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0] they are ground lcase sites; however they do agree that standards for building materials/codes will be mct. Frie asked about policing of the covenants and Mielke advised that they do have in place an OEA agreement to take care of the City's concerns, adding that they have control over entire site. Grittman advised that these are not the same as a townhome covcnant, and Knisely added that if the City wanted to review the agrecment that would be possible. Time frame of the project was discusscd and Mielke statcd it is critical to them as well as they need to provide information to their potential tcnants to accommodate their necds. J lerbst questioned if the project was to be completed in 200 I or 2002, and Mielkc stated that was the intent although cngineering has to be addressed, as well as utility work to be donc by the City, and thcir intent is to begin as soon as possible. O'Neill adviscd that the feasibility study is in process for Ccdar Strect. . Chair Frie questioned why thc applicant had not mct the conditions prior to this meeting and Grittman statcd that after staff's review the applicant had submitted information in a timely manner, thc landscape plan is not required until a latcr date, and the developmcnt stage is the last time thcre would be a public review, the final stage would be the next step. Staff's responsibility is to look over the final site plan and make surc that all conditions are mct before final plan. Lighting plan is to comply with City ordinancc and have no glare. Mielke asked for the planning commission to considcr approving their plan so they can move ahead with the OEA agreements and secure tenants. Mielke further discussed the signage stating there are 8 di ffercnt businesses, including Subway which will bc adding on; prcfer to havc a frceway pylon similar to thc Silver Fox, Amoco Station and SuperAmerica, which staff adviscd were in place prior to the City's ordinance. Clint Herbst added that he thought the existing signs on Hwy 25 arc approx. 50 t1 in height and staff also advised that the signs are not in compliance and that SuperAmcrica had received a variance due to the pre-existing sign for the previous business. Thcre was further discussion regarding sign heights being thc samc on the IIwy 25 corridor, noting that if a business was within 800 ft of the freeway it would qualify for a 32 foot sign; and unless the Planning Commission can find a specific hardship or rcason for varying from the ordinance rcgarding height, they would need to bc carcful in detcrmining what that is. Also stated was that if the busincsses along Highway 25 wanted heights visible from the freeway, how far down the corridor would the City go to allow sign heights in excess of the ordinance as every business would argue the same. Mielke stated that the existing Ultra-Lube sign is 22 ft in height and he feels that is too low, would ask that the 3 proposed signs on Hwy 25 would be the same in height, approximately 30 fcet. Fred Patch advised that somc sign heights were adjusted back in 1997, when they were completely blown down, to kcep them in accordance with thc ordinance. . Again Mielke questioned why the City would not want all signs on Hwy 25 to be the same or symmetrical, adding that he feels he will have an issue with potential tenants at the end of their sitc on Hwy 25 if signage is not higher, morc visible. ] lerbst discussed . . . Planning Conllllission Minutes - 04/03/01 the possibility of varying sign heights so they would be more visible, but it was stated that spacing the signs appropriately helps with visibility. Patch stated the City has not conducted a detailed review of the signs and suggested moving forward on approval of this development stage plan and look into the sign issue by surveying the existing signs. Mielke also discussed the issue with traffic coming in from a different access, they would request the wall signage on the east side as well. Patch states number of walls for signage is at least 2, but there is a square footage requirement. The planning commission discussed that it is a dead-end drive and also do not want to over-sign the development. Patch advised that some existing signage could be moved. Ilerbst questioned if a variance could be granted due to the access change but it was stated that directional signage is allowed, up to] 0 ft is allowable without a permit. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members asked Grittman for clarification on his recommendation as it stated he did not recommend approval as presented. Grittman advised that he did not recommend approval without the conditions as stated in the staff report, again adding that granting a PUD should result in a site design which is superior to a plan which complies with the basic zoning regulations. The members also asked Grittman if he was concerned with parking and he stated he was comfortable, with Patch also noting the phasing of the project and how much of the parking will be built, amount oflandscaping put in, at the beginning, and possibly this should be addressed in the conditions as well. Mielke added that the larger retailers/businesses wanted 30 to 35 parking spaces each and the members questioned the lack of parking to the south, would people walk from site to site? Popilek also noted that the 8 foot variance on Cedar Street will still need to be addressed; members questioned if the PUD plan were to change would the applicant have to come back to the planning commission, and Grittman advised that it would be a judgement call by staff. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE cuP/pun AND PRELIMINAR Y PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT, WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, TABLING ITEM #4 REGARDING SIGNS TO BE SURVEY BY CITY STAFF AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE MAY] MEETING, IS APPROPRIATE FOR TIlE LOCATION AND PROPOSED USES, AND THAT TIlE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS QUALIFY FOR PUD CONSIDERATION UNDER 'fI-IE CITY'S PUD ORDINANCE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Update on Jay Morrell site violations. Jeff O'Neill advised that he made one last eff()ft with Morrell to go through the planning process with the City and had given him a deadline of April 9,2001, which is the . . . 13. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 planning commission's deadline fl)f the next meeting in May. The City Attorney is also aware. 11. Amoco Site O'Neill advised that a proposal to put in a restaurant and parking on the fiJrmer Amoco site was reviewed by the HRA and at this time there is a potential issue with parking. He advised that a parking study was done identifying current parking spaces in that area. Steve added that the survey determined that almost never do the parking lots fill to even half. He also stated that there is a good supply of on-street parking available. Staff is also looking at what other types of developments may go in to that area and how that would affect parking as well. 12. Sunnv Fresh Fred Patch advised that he and O'Neill had met with Don Roberts from Sunny Fresh regarding installation of sidewalks, trails, etc., and that Sunny Fresh was receptive to discussions with the City in working with them. Sunny Fresh advised that at this time they do have a problem with parking issues during shift changes. Richard Carlson stated that he had noticed that Sunny Fresh had done a nice job of installing trees on the south side of their property and asked if the Community Center was intending to do the same. Patch stated that the HRA is helping to fund this project along with the Walnut Street improvements. Adiourn. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:25 P.M. Motion carried. ~ 16