Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-01-2000 , I , Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 1,2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: ] efT 0 'N eill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 5. 2000. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUL Y 5, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. This items was moved to item number 17 of the agenda, and at that time it was decided to review this item at the next regular Planning Commission meeting of September 5, 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO REVIEW STATUS OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT AT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. 6 & 7 Consideration of a Rezonin!! to Planned Unit Development and concept sta1!e pun approval for office. private school. performing arts center, recordin!! studio, residential uses and off--site parkin!!; and Consideration of a concept sta!!e development approval allowin!! office space. private school. performin!! arts center. recordin!! studio. residential uses and off-site parkin!!; and consideration of a 4 unit town house development and 4 sin!!le familv homes. Applicants: Church of St. Henry. Barry Bluhm. and Don Bauer. -1- , Planning Comlllission Minutes - 08/01/00 Steve (i-rittman provided the stair report explaining the joint tIling by the applicants for the redevelopment of the St. Flenry's Church site along Maple and 4th Streets. The redevelopment consists of three main components. Barry Bluhm proposes to redevelop the main church building and maintain the church parking lot south of 4th Street. The development would include a conversion of the sanctuary into a performing arts center. Much of the remainder of the building would inelude office space, a recording studio, and three apartment units. The lower level of the building may be leased as a private school. Mr. Bluhm expects no exterior changes at this time, although a small addition to accommodate loading may bc sought at a future date. Issues related to this pOliion of the PUD include traffic and access to the project through the existing neighborhood. Don Bauer proposes residential use in two adjacent parcels. The first component would be potential single family homes along 3rd Street. Plans for this portion of the project arc still being developed. However, it is expected that a private access drive would be developed along the rear of the project to sharc with the Bluhm project. I Thc third component would also be residential. Don Bauer proposes four townhouscs along Maple Street. A shared driveway is proposed which would provide access to Maple Street from the church parking lot being used by the Bluhm development. Mr. Bauer has provided two alternative concept plans for this component. Chair Prie opencd the Public Hearing. Mr. Don Doran, 515 Maple St, addressed the Commission stating his concerns over parking on south side of Maple St. Mr. Jeff Gardner, 500 W. 41h St., also stated his concern with parking issues as well as increased traffic, noting he has small children and is concerned about the speed of the traffic as well. Mr. Grittrnan noted that it is expected that daily traftlc gencration would be quitc small. Apart from the pcr1cwming arts center, the parking demand would be approximately 20 spaces. The perf(mning arts center would generate the greatcst parking dcmand and traffic levels, although on a more sporadic schedule. The auditorium would generate a demand for between 90 and 100 spaces, with an additional need for 20 spaccs, depending on the production. The existing parking lot is estimated to have about 130 spaces, meeting the projected demand. A preference for traftlc access to and 1rom the south would best avoid potential conflicts with the residential areas to the north and east. , Grittman also stated additional detail rcgarding the schcduling of performances would help to refine the land use issues and any steps nceessary to minimize negative impacts. Traffic, lighting and signage wcre also addrcssed. Mr. Barry Bluhm, Becker, MN, addressed the COlmnission regarding thcse issues and also addressed the proposed rental units. He did note that these residential units would be short-term leased as he felt there was a nced for this. He also commentcd on the proposed private school which would be for approximately 35 children, Monday through Friday. The current dayeare was addresscd and it was noted that this is not part of the proposed PUD. Grittman addressed the 3rd Street Residential portion of the project which is proposed to be -2- , Planning COll1ll1ission Minutcs - 08/0]/00 low density residential uscs consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Conecpt plans have not been developcd for this pOliion of the project at this time. Grittman also addrcssed the Don Bauer Maple Street Townhome portion of the project which consists of four townhouse units between Maple Street and the existing parking lot, adjacent to the north side of thc Burlington NOlihern rail line. The land use is consistent with the existing zoning (R-2), but a PUD approach is necessary to provide for the usc of common areas and shared driveways. Two site plans were submitted. Due to the traffIc potential ii'om the parking lot, staff prefcrs the first option. The green space would be concentrated in the front yard, and service/garage spaces would be located adjacent to the parking area. The second plan would result in traffic fi'om the parking lot, heaviest after perJcwmances in the arts center, leaving the site through the "fronts" of the townhouse units. Green space would be conccntrated at the rear of the units, along the perimeter of the site, and two units would be quite close to the parking lot itself. Mr. Peter Donohue, attorney for Mr. Bauer, addressed the Commission stating these would be upscale, individually owned townhomes. He also stated that their preierence is to have two townhome units, one on each end, but noted they arc willing to work with City staif on this issue as well as any parking ISSUes. I Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Grittman exp1aincd the process of this project, noting that because of the unique nature of the use, as well as the long-established character of the surrounding neighborhood, a PUD zoning is a valuable tool in managing the land use impacts of redevelopment on this site. It also allows both the City and the developers to proceed incrementally, and provides the neighborhood to gain a clearer understanding of the project and its issues early in the process. .lefT O'Neill also advised that this item would come before the City Council on 8/14/00, at which time it would be 1c)rwarded back to the Planning Commission for final development stage plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE pun ZONING DISTRICT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUD DISTRICT PROVIDES THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF ASSURANCE THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USES WILL BE DEVELOPED AND MANAGED IN A WAY WHICH ENHANCES THE EXISTING NEIGHBORIIOOD. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. , A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUO CONCEPT, CONDITIONED ON TI IE APPLICANTS' ABILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH OF THE THREE PRIMAR Y COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT, AND THE SUBMISSION ~ - -,- , Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 OF APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS AND APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING SITE PLANS, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS, UTILITY PLANS, BUILDING AND FLOOR PLANS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE PLANS, AS APPROPRIATE. A SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS SI-lOULO ALSO BE PREPARED TO VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND BUILDING LOCATIONS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a conditional usc permit aUowine mixed use sho in center develo mcnt of office commercial and residential in the CCO Central Communitv District. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. Steve Grittman provided the staffreport regarding Silver Creek Real Estate Development's proposal to construct a mixed use development on a parcel bounded by the Burlington Northern Railroad on the north, Walnut Street on the west, the municipal liquor store site on the south, and Highway 25 on the east. I Grittman noted that thc downtown revitalization plan encourages thc usc of mixed use design, and urban building styles in the corridor along Walnut Street. Thc proposed project would maximize the amount of Walnut Street frontage for commercial development, with the exception of access to 5 Y:- Street (to be developed as an internal access drive, and an access ramp to the below-grade parking garage). The project would provide 36 at-grade parking spaces north of 5 Y:- Strect. South of 5 Y:- Street, a redesign of the parking lot would be proposed, concurrent with the development of the new commcrcial space. A perimeter dri veway is proposed along the nOIih side of the building which lies in part on the property, and in part on the Slh Street right of way which is shared with Burlington Northern. Access to this driveway from Walnut, as wcll as the garage access, would require a reconstruction oUhe Walnut on-street parking in this area. Grittman stated the CCD requirements require building heights of between 15 and 35 feet and zero setbacks. The proposed building is two stories in height which he stated was desirable in this district, approximately twenty feet (building elevations are yet to be submitted), and is located with zero setbacks along north, east, and west lot lines. At-grade parking lots are required to maintain the five foot setbacks where practical. It would appear that there is room to accommodate this standard, and the site plan should be revised to reHeet this. Density for second story residential units is allowed to be up to one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area. For the land north of the 5 Y:- Street driveway, this would accommodate up to 14 units. The project is in compliance with 12 proposed units. , Grittman also provided information regarding parking, pedestrian access, sign age, streetscape/landscape building design and sitc coordination. Chair hie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. -4- I I , Planning Conllnission Minutes - 08/01/00 Jeff O'Neill advised the Planning Commission that City Council directed City staff to begin the negotiation process with this applicant because this was a mixed usc site. He also added that the City still has sitc control. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding parking spaces. Grittman noted that the City ordinance is set up to obtain parking funds for futurc parking options in cases where there arc limited parking spaces. He also added that the applicant would have access to the Liquor Store parking which has an over-abundance of parking spaces. Grittman also noted that generally parking will occur on Walnut Street, 61h Street, as well as the Community Center parking lot. Herbst asked if there were to be access from Highway 25 to Walnut Street would the plan change significantly and would they need to acquire a permit from MnDOT. It was stated that this would need to be obtained and the chances of this happening are 50/50. The plan would need to be modified slightly. Aller further discussion, the applicant wished to have this matter heard by the Planning Commission at their special meeting schcduled for 8/] 4/00 and they felt they had adequate time to prepare. DICK FRIE MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REVITALIZATION PLAN AND THE CCD ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WITH TIlE CONDITION TI-IA T THE APPLICANT PREPARE SITE LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGF, AND BUILDING PLANS FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE DAT AND PLANNING COMMISSION, PRIOR TO FINAL CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPER SATISFY THE PARKING DEFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AS A PART OF THE FINAL APPROVAL. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearin - Consideration of an amendment to the ordinanee re ulatin housin densi standards and an amendment establishin minimum reen s ace and/or maximum lot eovcraee standards for residential development. Applieant: City of Monticello Planning Commission. Steve Grittman provided the staff report stating this item came up Jor consideration after Silver Creek Development requested to construct a townhouse project along east Th Street which would consist of up to 25 townhouse units. Due to the way in which the Monticello Zoning Ordinance currently calculates density, a townhouse project on this R-3 zoned site would be permitted just 16 units, whereas a multiple J~unily project would be allowed up to 25 units. The Planning Commission requested an amcndment to thc zoning ordinance which would address this disparity, but also ensure that townhouse projects would not overcrowd a parcel. Grittman added that in checking with other communitics, this 30% requirement is -5- I I , Planning Commission Millutes - 08/01/00 average. Grittl11an explained the proposed ordinance amendment which he provided, stated the Lot Area Per Unit section is amended to add a clause which refcrs to the fact that individual districts may have spccific density standards. For a project which was in a district without a specific standard (most districts do not address this issue), the Lot Area Per Unit Tablc would apply, such as in a PUD in the R-2 District, or a standard H.-I single family plat. The second portion amends the "Usable Open Space" section by applying the 500 square fcet of open space standard to townhouse development, and adding an alternative clausc which would mandate a 30% green space requirement. This requirement is within the average range of such regulations from other communitics, but also includes some exemptions from the calculation. Finally, the ordinance amends the R-3 District to state that townhouse projects within the R~ 3 District may use the density a)]owances of multiple family development. Combincd with the green space requirement, a townhouse development could be constructed at a higher density in the R-3 District, but would still have to maintain a livable amount of green space in the project. Chair Frie opened the Public Hearing. A representative from Silver Creek addressed the Commission stating thcy had reduccd the number of townhouse units to 22, the calculated green space is we)] over thc 30% required, accommodations have becn made f()r snow removal as well as the parking requircments. There are now 98 parking spots and 2 car garages per unit. Fire and ambulance access was also redesigned. The Public Hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REGULATION OF DENSITY BY ZONING DISTRICT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE IN'rENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER DENSITY PROJECTIONS USED FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Considcration of an apDlication for a ConditionallJse Permit/Planned Vnit Devclo ment and a PreJimina Plat to allow the devclo mcnt ofa townhouse ro'cct to be known as Klcin Farms Estates 4th Addition. Applicant: D. Klein Construction, Inc. Planning Commissioner Roy Popilek excused himself stating a conflict of interest. Stcve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report stating D. Klein Construction, Inc. has applied for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow an II-unit town home development. The property is 1.4 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of the -6- I I t 1.L Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 intersection of Stoneridge Dri ve and N .E. Fallon A venue. A similar townhome development called Klein Farms Estates was approved in 1995 and is located west of the su~ject site and the land use is consistent with the guided land use and zoning for the property. Ten two-unit townhomes and one detached townhome are proposed. The City may want to consider whether a detached townhome is appropriate in this location surrounded by two-unit town homes. Grittman also discussed density, setbacks, buffer yard, landscaping, building design and spacing, paved surfaces, grading and utilities, snow removal, developers agreement, homeowner rulcs and bylaws and refuse. Chair Frie opened the public hcaring. Dave Klein of D. Klein Construction, advised the members that hc revised his plans since receiving information from statT regarding the necessary changes. Roy Popilek, 4870 Stoneridge Dr., addressed the members stating his concern with this particular property noting that it has been an eyesore for some time now and although he would like to see it developed, he was concerned with the initial proposed density. Klcin stated that the number of units has been reduced to 8, advising that initially this was a project of another developer. The public hearing was closed. After further discussion regarding revised plans and the definition clarification of unit 3 as single fanlily dwelling detached or townhol11e which Grittman stated was a PUD, it was recommended by stafTthat the CUPlPlJD and preliminary plat be tabled until the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are met and re-submitted for review. Increasing building setbacks along the north, west, and south property lines will have a significant afTect on lot layout and density. A landscape plan has not been submitted with the required buHcr yard landscaping, and no elements of a superior development have heen presented in exchange for the flexihility a PlJD provides. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE THE CUPlPlJD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 8/14/00, BASED ON A FINDING THAT CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z BE MET AND TilE SUBMITTAL OF A NEW SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 0 with Roy Popilek abstaining. Considcration of an amendment to a planncd unit dcvelooment allowinl! expansion of a sharcd use. outdoor storal!e arca and consideration of a variancc to thc rear yard setback re uirements and consideration of a variances to stora c area sizc maximums. Applicant: .John .Johnson - Monticello Auto Body. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the report stating the applicant's request Jar an amendment to a conditional use permit and a variance that would enable expansion of -7- I Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01100 the area used for outdoor storage. The expansion area is proposed to extend within 5' of Marvin Road right of way, which requires a 25' variance. Johnson proposes to install a 6' stockade style fence. Pine trees will be planted at 6' intervals to help break-up the view of the fence from the west. Planning Commission turned down the variance request in 1997 based on a finding that a hardship had not been demonstrated. Also, the proposed expansion area would cause the outside storage to exceed 50% of the area of the principal building which is in violation of the zoning code. A variance ii"om this provision would therefore be needed in conjunction with the PUD/ClIP approval. O'Neill did state that per the applicant, this would be temporary as he is anticipating moving his business to the adjacent property. , O'Neill stated that the zoning ordinance was aInended previously to allow auto body shops to operate in the B-3 District. The area of expansion includes both the Auto Body shop and adjoining parcel. Since this time, Johnson has been allowed to merge outside storage associated with two parcels (1997). In 1997, lohnson was denied the variance allowing storage closer to the rear lot line, however he has used the area for outside storage anyway. This unauthorized outside storage area has been un screened for some time which has become an in1portant issue with the development of the Groveland project. Over the years, it has been observed that the parking has been deficient. This problem is relevant only if the Planning Commission believcs that enlarging the storage area will create a bigger parking problem. If anything, enlarging the storage area might rclieve some of the parking problem. O'Neill also stated that Marvin Road is currently undeveloped. Under thc Groveland project plans, Marvin Road to the north of Chelsea Road will be developed as a pathway/private drive for Olson Electric. Chair Frie opened the public hcaring. John Johnson, Monticello Auto Body, addressed the members stating he would like to put up a fence to buffer this storage arca. He also stated several times that he was not aware that he could not have outdoor storage on this property. O'Neill advised Mr. lohnson that a fcnce would interfere with the sctbacks as well. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. t There was furthcr discussion regarding the amount of debris on this property as wel I as thc applicant being in violation of the conditions of his CUP. Several options discusscd were to build storage on the lot to the north of this parcel, which Mr. Johnson recently purchased, and include this parcel in a planned unit development. It was also discuss cd that Mr. lohnson could use this current building as storage once his new building is complete. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE -8- I , . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 APPLICANT FILES FOR A PUD AMENDMENT. RIClIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. After further discussion, it was agreed by all members that if Mr. Johnson does not seek an amendment to his pun by August 14, 2000, this item becomes an enfl)rCement issue. 12. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit develo ment in a B-3 District to allow the ex ansion of an auto sales and stora e lot. Apolicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised the Planning Commission that the applicant stated he was having difficulty getting the necessary information from his architect. At the most recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed City staff to notify Dave Peterson that the planning item would be placed on thc Planning Commission agenda for consideration with or without the additional inJormation that the Commission has been waiting Jor. Steve Johnson, ford, was informed of the Planning Commission's desire to consider the matter and O'Neill spoke to Dave Pcterson asking him for the necessary site plan information by July 17,2000. O'Neill also Jollowed up with a letter. Dave Petcrson indicated that his architect has been tied up and that he would not have the site plan information completed in time tor thc meeting. Peterson noted this problem in a Ictter to O'Neill which is on file. Planning Commission can proceed with the review and recommendation or wait another lllonth or until the site plan data arrivcs. O'Neill stated the options of the Planning Commission being either to table this item or deny it. He also stated that if it was denied by both the Planning COlllmission and the City Council, the City would then need to enforce that the applicant is in violation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PUD AMENDMEN'f BASED ON THE FINDING T1-:lAf NO INfORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE NOVEMBER OF 1999, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE fORWARD WITHOUT SUFfICIENT INFORMA nON. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Clint Herbst, Council Liaison, stated that perhaps if the Planning Commission denies this application, the City Council may review and send it back to the Planning Commission directing staff to enforce the City code until the applieant provides the proper information requested. THE MOTION WAS THEN AMENDED BY BOTH ROBBIE SMITH AND ROY POPII,EK TO NOT ACCEPT THE APPIJCATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE -9- I I . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 PUD AND DIRECT STAFF TO ENFORCE THE CITY CODE. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of revised setback standards for residential uses in the Ori!!inaJ and Lower Monticello Plats. Apolicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report stating that recently, the City has considered a number of variance requests fix reduced setbacks on lots of rccord in the older portions of the community. Most of these lots are 66 Jeet wide by 165 feet deep, consistent with the historical platting practice of the community's original founders. Platting of single family lots changed in the late 1970s upon the adoption of a new zoning ordinance which established a standard of 80 foot wide lots, with 10 foot side yard setbacks. This mandated a buildable width of at least 60 on new residential lots. The new setback standard was applied to all residential building in the City. An additional rcquirement madc of new homes was the construction of a two car garage. With ten foot side yards, lots in the original plat and Lower Monticello have just 46 feet of buildable area, making garage construction problematic. Moreover, homes in these areas are often in need of more regular maintenance and upkeep. One of the common trends in real estate which helps to ensure regular reinvestment in older homes is the ability to update and expand thcm to meet contemporary housing requirements. The City has frequently found that the current zoning regulations, especially the ten foot side yard setback rcquirement, is a significant impediment to this process. Grittman provided an ordinance which is intended to rectify that problem in the older plat areas by creating an "overlay" allowance for narrowcr side yard setbacks on single t"Eunily lots of record in the older platted parts of the community. The ordinance does not contemplate that more intense residential uses would qual ify for this exemption since it would be reasonable to expect that two family homes, townhouscs, or other multiple family structures will need more than just one of the old lots to qualify for the additional density, and additional spacing would be appropriate in any case. The ordinance recommcnds a six foot side yard setback standard for eligible parcels. This standard was common in many arcas prior to the advent of wider lots, and is consistent with building code requirements for building separation. At the six f()ot standard, buildable arca would be increased from 46 Jeet to 54 feet, a significant impact for those parcels, while still maintaining a reasonable building spacing. Six feet is usually enough to maintain the side of a two story home, and install a sidewalk around the side of the house from front to back. Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Wayne Cox, 306 E. 41h St, addrcssed the members asking if this ordinance amendment was approved, what is the next step needed for him to -10- I , . Planning COlllmission Minutes - 08101/00 take in order to obtain a building permit. He was advised by Fred Patch to apply for a building pelTnit and stay within the 6 Jt. setback. Public hearing was closed. Thcre was further discussion regarding the clarification of "Original and Lower Monticello" and it was determined this should he stated in the motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH '1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TI IE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR LOTS OF RECORD AND WHICH ARE 66 FEET IN WIDTH OR LESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITII THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL OF ENCOURAGING REINVESTMENT IN TILE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. ROD ORAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance estahlishinl! a buildinl! to site area ratio for auto sales commercial huildinl!s in the B-3 zoninl! district. Apolicant: Citv of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report stating the reason for consideration of this proposed ordinance amendment. The concern was that the small lot coverage pcrcentage allowed previously for Dunlo Motors on a small sitc would permit extraordinarily large sales lots with minimal building requirements and a consumption of valuahle commercial land. The standards established for Dunlo on a one acrc site werc no less than 5% lot coverage, with a minimum building size of 2,500 square fect, whichcver requires the larger building. A 5% lot coverage on a live acre site would allow a building of just 11,000 square fect. The Peterson Ford building is approximately 59,000 square fect on slightly more than 6 acres. Petcrson's lot coverage is 21.8%. Grittman provided a proposed scale. Under this scale, Peterson Ford could have huilt a 40,500 square foot building. Gould 8rothers is currently on a 7.0 acre site. At 15% coverage, this would require a building of about 45,000 square feet. Staff is aware that Gould's has plans to expand their dealership. A preliminary concept plan has bcen reviewed briefly showing a 50,000 square foot building on a lot of about 8 acres. On an 8 acre site, a huilding of 52,000 would be required. Grittman also stated that the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to take these Llctors into consideration as an ordinance is draflcd. It was also noted that the two proposed applications, Gould Brothers and the Dodge Dealership, should be made aware of this ordinancc amendlnent. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A GRADUATED BUILDING LOT COVERAGE FOR AUTO SALES IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. RICIJARD CARLSON -11- , , . Planning Conunission Minutes - 08/01100 SECONDED TIlE MOTION. Motion carried unaninlOusly. 15. Considcration of establishing building and architectural design standards in thc busincss districts. Aoplicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report regarding the possibility of establishing building and architectural design standards for business districts. The report is intended to identify potential methods of regulation, and levels of complexity. Based on the Planning Commission's discussion, a draft ordinance will be developed for consideration at a future meeting. Thcre are basically two levels of possible regulation, one being a common requirement in many communities establishing some baseline building materials standards which new buildings must adhere to, just as they adhere to setbacks or parking requirements. The second level would entail more specific architectural stylc issues which are usually taken through a design review proccss, such as DA T does with the CCD developments. Grittman also discussed the possibility of building material standards. Most newer regulations are now requiring that the entire building meet the standards, particularly in commercial areas (as opposed to industrial) where public traffic around the building is common. In our experience, these regulations typically apply to all business districts, and this should be made a part of the discussion. The use of wood and metal was another option. It would be important to discuss newly developed huilding materials, such as EIFS (Exterior Insulated Building Systems) - oftcn fabricated to look like stucco or other matcriaL and how an ordinance should address these new building options. Input from the building oiTi.cial would be valuable in this regard. Finally, the Ordinance will need to address the expansion of buildings which would now be non-conJ()fming due to their building materials. We are aware of ordinances which address this issue hy allowing such buildings to expand by Conditional Use Permit. This approach allows the City to requirc site and/or building improvements to be phased in although the building materials may be diJJicult to change dramatically. Another option is to allow a blanket exemption for expansion up to a certain threshold size, then require full conformance with thc building materials ordinance. Architectural Standards/Design Reviews were also discussed. Bcyond building materials, some municipalities have adopted more detailed architectural standards and included a design review process to ensure well-designed buildings and/or sites. Monticello has such a process in the downtown, Central Community District, utilizing the Design Advisory Team t()r architectural review. Many of these standards are developcd to continue or re-establish a particular architectural theme. -12- I Planning Commission Minutes - OR/OI/OO Chair rrie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATING BUILDING MATERIALS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS PER PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. & Public He~lring - Consideration of an amendment to the zoninl! ordinance clarifying the definition of 9,000 lb. gross vehicle wcil!ht motor vehicles. Apolicant: City of Monticello City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM AT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2000. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 17. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRlE TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000 AT 5: 15 P.M. TO DISCUSS THE TWO Sit VER CREEK REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND THE D. KLEIN CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unani mOllsl y. , 18. Adiourn. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. . ~ 13-