The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Minutes 02-07-2006MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum of the Commission. Dragsten noted that the application period for a new Commission member had concluded. 2. Approval of the minutes of the rei4ular Planning- Commission meeting of Tuesdav, January 3rd, 2006. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 3RD, 2006. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 00 ' temporary i O'Neill added as item 13 an update related to the po ry sign ordinance. to Dragsten requested that an update on the round -about conference be added as item 14. He also requested that an update on the comprehensive plan request for proposal be added as item 15 and setting a date for interview of Planning Commissioner candidates and resolution of Planning Commission meeting dates be added as item 16. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. Continue Public Hearinz - Consideration of request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance reaulatin2 Open and Outdoor Storave in I-1. I-2, and I-1 A areas. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the proposed amendment item reflects the discussion related to the most recent small group meeting. The small group had been assigned with the task of reviewing the current ordinance and proposing an alternative ordinance amendment. Grittman reported that the presented ordinance amendment includes the four changes recommended by the small group. These include redefining screening in terms of opacity and height, allowing outdoor storage in the front yard, differing setbacks in different industrial districts, and trash handling equipment as outdoor storage. Grittman explained that these items, as presented in the proposed ordinance, represent a change from the current ordinance. Grittman stated that staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, with the reservation that staff is concerned about allowing outdoor storage in the front yard. Grittman indicated that front yard storage can become unsightly and difficult to maintain. He noted that staff does not support front yard outdoor storage, although the small group does support that idea. Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies of Maple Grove, addressed the Commission as a representative for Monticello Industrial Park. Pfeffer stated that he has been active in the Monticello market for about 12 years. Pfeffer indicated that he had comments related to the I-1 district. Pfeffer stated that he believes that there is a market for building types that may have not received adequate attention in this ordinance. He presented a quick overview presentation. Pfeffer referred to large distribution and warehouse facilities with large numbers of trailers, which would be considered outside storage. He stated that these buildings range in size up to several hundred thousand feet and up to 42' in height. They require a certain number of dock doors and storage areas for trailers for the purpose of warehousing and distribution. Pfeffer noted that the trailer storage can be for hours or weeks. The trailers are all operating and licensed. Pfeffer indicated that the Commission may want to review the proposed amendment in relationship to this type of use. Pfeffer stated that the other item of concern relates to screening. Pfeffer stated it is very valuable, and screening between industrial uses merits further consideration. Pfeffer stated that there may not generally be a need to screen between properties. Pfeffer suggested that berming be less emphasized, as there are other alternatives. Pfeffer presented some images from other communities to illustrate his point. Pfeffer thanked the Commission for their time and consideration of these items. Dragsten asked if Pfeffer had attending any of the small group meetings. Pfeffer stated that he had, but he was not in attendance at the last meeting. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked Grittman if any storage is allowed in front of the buildings within the current 10 ordinance. Grittman replied that it is not, although the current ordinance is unclear as to some of the boundaries of where storage can occur. Hilgart stated that in his opinion, there isn't a need for storage in the front of a building, unless perhaps the building has an extreme setback. Dragsten asked if front yard storage could be any kind of storage as defined in the proposed ordinance. Grittman confirmed it could be. Spartz commented on how far the proposed amendment had come. He noted that he thought trailers would be allowed as storage in the I-2 within the proposed ordinance. Grittman stated that the detached trailers discussed by Pfeffer would be considered outdoor storage without limitation in the I-2. The same is true in the I-1, although the area is more restricted. Spartz referenced that this amendment had been in process since November 2004, then discussed stacking and storage of items. He stated that the small group felt outdoor storage could be proposed as unlimited in height, because due to the safety factors, users couldn't stack excessively. Spartz stated that the question is whether the City is comfortable with that. Grittman agreed that a considerable amount of time had been spent on that issue, along with how high the corresponding screening should be. The consensus of the group was that the unsightly storage would be lower to the ground, which resulted in the 6-foot screening clause. Spartz stated that he thinks the amendment is a fair agreement between staff and the small group. Spartz stated that front yard storage is a concern for him, as well, suggesting that perhaps a CUP should be required for front yard storage. Suchy stated that Pfeffer had made a good point from the standpoint of looking at what kind of businesses the City could attract. Suchy sought clarification on whether the type of business 2 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Pfeffer referred to could be allowed. Grittman stated that they would be allowed within the I-1 and I-2 districts. However, they probably not be allowed within the I-lA due to high development standards. Suchy stated that she is also concerned about storage in the front yard. She understands that this had been through months of research, but believes that the small group has worked through this and trusts their judgement. She stated that for her it is a difficult call but indicated that she thought the ordinance could remain as proposed. Dragsten stated that he thinks that the group that has worked on this has come up with good ideas. He stated that his concern is with front yard outdoor storage. Dragsten stated that he thinks the industrial park does look nice and to change that portion of the ordinance would not be correct. Dragsten inquired whether chain link fences would be allowed. Grittman stated that they would be, but where screening is required they would also need to landscape. Posusta stated that it the Commission were going to distinguish on the slats, he agrees with Pfeffer that slats do not look attractive after a few years. Dragsten stated that might come under some other ordinance requirement instead. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUBMITTED, WITH AN EXCEPTION REQUIRING THAT OUTDOOR STORAGE BE ALLOWED IN FRONT YARD AREAS BY CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT ONLY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. Hilgart asked if by approving the amendment, it opens up questions as to who does or doesn't comply. Grittman referred to existing non -conforming uses, stating that the ordinance would only new applications. He also confirmed that the amendment requires a CUP for outdoor storage anywhere in the I-1. In the 1-2 district, outdoor storage would be permitted, but the motion as made would require a CUP for front yard storage in the I-2. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Consideration to adopt a resolution approving the modification of the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Finance District No. 1-6 (Raindance). Koropchak presented information regarding the request on behalf of the Monticello HRA. Koropchak stated that the HRA is asking the Commission to adopt a resolution for modification of TIF District 1-6. Koropchak explained that 1-6, located downtown, is a redevelopment district that was implemented in 1985 and runs through 2013. Koropchak explained that the reason the Commission is asked to modify the district is due to come of the statutes changing in regard to tax financing. Each year, if it is projected that there is excess tax increment, there is an option to modify the district's plan to increase the budget. This allows the HRA to use that money in the future. Koropchak noted that before the HRA can incur expenditures, they have to come back with a plan or contract for private redevelopment and explain what the funds will be used for. Koropchak stated that modification requires the same process as base district establishment. In this case, the HRA is seeking the modification to increase the budget, which is currently at $465,000. The HRA would increase it to $1.9 million. Koropchak again noted that the HRA is not expending those funds, just preserving the monies for the future. She also stated that the HRA is not enlarging the boundary of the district. 3 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Koropchak stated that the Planning Commission is asked to find that the modification conforms to the redevelopment plan. Dragsten asked Koropchak if the money goes back to Wright County, the HRA cannot get it back. Koropchak confirmed that at the end of 2006, the City would have 9 months to pay the County. The HRA has in the past decertified TIF districts early and paid the County back. Koropchak stated that pre-1990 districts, such as this one, are not as limited in how the HRA can spend the money. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO TIF DISTRCT I-6 CONFORMS TO THE PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for variance to the sidevard setback relating_ to the extension of a driveway in an R-1 (Single -Family Residential) District. Applicant: Michael Moree Chairman Dragsten explained that the applicant had requested continuing the item to the next regular meeting of the Commission. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. 10 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING O T THE MARCH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stake Planned Unit Development for a 128-unit residential develop_ ment in a PZM (Performance Zone -Mixed) District. Applicant: UP Development Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the project's location on along Elm Street. Grittman explained that 6 '/z Street is proposed to extend into the project from Vine Place. Grittman stated that the applicant had been before the Commission previously with the east portion of the project and has now designed the project to include the west side. Grittman reviewed the previous proposal for the east half, stating that the original proposal showed 48 back -to back two-story units. All of these units would have been served by private roads looping around the building clusters. Grittman stated that the west side of Elm includes a series of different unit styles, including detached townhouses around a private alley, row townhouses on the southern portion of the project served by a private drive, and a public street with single family lots on the west and north boundary. Grittman indicated that there are a total of 128 units for the entire project. The project comprises a density of about 6 units per acre for the two sides combined. Grittman reported that the staff report identifies a number of issues related to those plans. Primarily, staff were concerned with the east side design and the lack of open space given the density of the project. Dragsten asked about the new plan that had just been provided to the Commission that evening. g Grittman stated the plan is for informational purposes. In relationship to the first proposal, staff Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 were concerned about the density, which resulted in a lack of open space, and a large amount of impervious surface. Grittman stated that those issues were raised with the applicant. There were also some concerns addressed regarding the west side design. Grittman stated that the ordinance requires that when looking at PUD, the trade-off in flexing ordinance standards is a superior project with more amenities, or a design exceeding the ordinance standards. Staff s concern in this case was that the PUD was not being used very well. Grittman reported that the applicant had met with staff, and in response to staff s comments, had asked his designers to redraft the project for this area. The new plan, given to the Commission this evening, includes both sides. The modifications result in a re -orientation of the east side of the plat, breaking up the back-to-back units into a row design and eliminating two of the three driveways. Staff has suggested that rather than internal driveway loops, perhaps another intersection onto Elm could be allowed. Staff tried to avoid this, but feels it opens the site and significantly reduces the amount of impervious surface. Grittman stated that it also allows for a much larger area of open space up against the Vine Place project. Grittman commented that the applicant also reduced the unit count from 128 to 116 units, which results in an overall density of 5.4 units per acre. This is more consistent with what we see in townhouse developments and close to the Vine Place density. Grittman stated that the changes on the west side include no internal alley, and detached townhome access directly to the public street. The row housing is in smaller clusters, and some units were eliminated. The developer had left the single family area as originally proposed. Grittman stated that staff had met this morning to discuss this plan and while staff haven't had a chance to look at it in detail, it does address a number of staffs concerns. Grittman indicated that he thinks it utilizes the street space, provides more open space and breaks up unit clusters. He noted that generally, the row townhomes are more attractive to the public and to residents. to Grittman reported that there are still a few concerns. He indicated that there are issues related to setbacks, which will need to be addressed. Grittman stated that while it will be important to try not to encroach on open apace, the plan needs to meet setbacks. Staff has also suggested that rather than ending in a cul-de-sac, the applicant should swing the drive all the way through, rotating central unit clusters. Additionally, staff have talked about the need for a turn -around were there is still one dead-end. Grittman stated that there is also a need to provide for a common garbage area. Grittman stated that the plan has gone from one with significant issues, to a project that staff think is more reflective of the City's PUD standards. He stated that the consensus is that this is a concept plan that staff could support, with the comments as noted. In general, the new plan is closer to the desired density and open space needed and presents a good unit mix with a variety of housing. Hilgart asked whether units 16-23 are zero setbacks. Grittman confirmed that there is no driveway for those units, that the garages access a private driveway. Hilgart asked where people park for those units. Grittman stated that the applicant will need to deal with visitor parking to ensure it is adequate. The applicant does have examples of that housing concept, which staff has toured. The zero driveway does not have a lot of support from engineering or public works staff, but does have some staff support. Hilgart commented that he does have concerns about a number of driveways emptying onto a public street. Grittman stated that there may be an opportunity to do shared drives. Spartz stated that on the first concept there were 11 items that staff had listed as reasons for denial. He inquired if staff is appeased in terms of those items with the revised plan. Grittman stated that they are comfortable that the applicant had addressed the intent of those issues, although the new plan may have raised some new issues. The intent of the comments was to identify areas were PUD was not being met. Spartz stated that he thinks the new plan is an improvement from what 5 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 the Commission had seen previously, but he hasn't had much time to review it in detail. Spartz commented that he thinks it's headed in the right direction. Suchy noted that the City had recently requested proposals for the comprehensive plan update. She referred to the request for an analysis regarding the balance in Monticello's housing mix and inquired whether the City should determine the mix balance before proceeding with more townhome projects. Grittman stated that his philosophy is that the market is its own best gauge. When developers propose more units than they can sell, they don't build them. Grittman stated that the critical item for the City is to determine the best places for types of housing. It is staffs view that this is one of those areas suited to this type of development, particularly because it is a redevelopment site. If the developer can't sell this many units, he won't build them, but staff do think this is the best land use for this area.. Dragsten agreed with Grittman. He noted that while it is difficult to determine a mix for them, hopefully the developer has done his due diligence. Dragsten noted that it is the Commission's job is to insure quality. Dragsten asked if all the streets are private. Grittman stated that in the new concept 6 % and Elm Street will be public. There are other streets within the development that are private. Dragsten stated that this is a much better project, with more open space. O'Neill noted that when this site was cleaned up, one of the requirements for the clean-up grant was that the homes be built at a certain value. That value was set at $180,000 ten years ago. O'Neill explained that would be something that will need to be followed -up on throughout the process. Dragsten noted that design of homes will change based on that information. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Tom Moores, speaking as Street Superintendent for the City of Monticello, indicated that he is concerned about the public street shown in the detached townhome area in terms of snow removal. Moores explained that townhomes up against a public street has created problems in the past. Moore referred to Sunset Ponds, explaining that the townhomes plow snow onto public streets. O'Neill acknowledged that point and responded that issues like that could point toward a private street for coordinated snow removal. Dragsten stated that could also be addressed in developer's agreement and homeowner's association documents. Dan Goeman, 632 61/2 Street, spoke as a representative for Vine Place residents. Goeman noted that the residents had submitted a comment letter based on the old plan. He stated that he thinks the developer did a good job adjusting the density in the new plan. Goeman indicated that he is still concerned about the dead-end in the southeastern area of the plat. He stated that he does appreciate the green space backing up to Vine Place. Goeman also agreed with the snow removal comment. Dragsten asked if Vine Place takes their snow out. Goeman answered that they do. Goeman stated that the developer had addressed a lot of the issues the residents were concerned about. He noted that townhomes with associations and covenants will help keep the quality of the area up, which was something the residents were concerned about. Goeman stated that for the Commission's information, his feeling is that there is still a need for higher -end townhomes. Tom Rollings, UP Development, made himself available for questions. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Suchy stated that she likes the revised plan and the open space, especially if the developer is going to cater to families. Suchy asked if there are there any other amenities planned to be included. Rollings stated that the spaces could be more functional, and he wouldn't be opposed to a 6 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 playground area. Suchy stated that she thinks it is important for each unit to have its own driveway. Rollings noted other projects where this concept has worked well. He also explained that the majority do have driveways. He noted that the noted units do have some space, while it is not a true driveway. O'Neill commented that staff did tour one of the developer's sites and talked to residents. There is a mix of units, so that prospective buyers can choose what they'd like. O'Neill explained that the no -driveway concept seemed to work in the development staff visited and if that space can be used for green space, it provides other benefits. Spartz asked about a homeowners association. Rollings said the association will be over the whole site, including to some extent the single family. O'Neill stated that exploring the private street idea is a good one, and may give the developer more latitude in the street width, as he wouldn't need to force homes into the open space. O'Neill noted that it isn't typical to have single family on private streets. Dragsten commented that units 16-23 did have a zero lot line, which is a minimal amount. If there were additional parking stalls, that might be more acceptable. Dragsten asked who will determine the amenities in the public space. O'Neill stated that staff and the developer will work together, and that the Parks Commission would like to have some comment, even though it would most likely not be a public space. O'Neill mentioned that some of the open space may be taken up by additional storm water ponding. Dragsten noted that this isn't a plat. He stated that when this comes forward to development stage and preliminary plat, the Commission will be looking at unit styles and quality via the PUD. Rollings noted that the east side elevations still apply in terms of style, but now they are just split. Suchy asked if windows would be provided on the rear and side of the row units. Rollings confirmed. O'Neill asked about if the garage entrance on the alley would be flush with the unit. Rollings stated that would be up to final design. Dragsten noted some additional variation may be needed on the proposed units. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD PRESENTED AT THE FERBAURY 7TH, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED MIXED - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN ESTABLISHES A HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT MEETS THE CITY'S INTENT FOR PUD CONSIDERATION. THE APPROVAL IS CONDITIONED ON THE INCORPORATION OF THE COMMENTS MADE REGARDING THE UPDATED PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary_ Plat and request for rezoning from A-O to R-lA for the Second Phase of Hidden Forest, a 172-unit single-family_ development. Applicant: Monticello 39, Inc. Grittman provided the staff report, noting the location of the second phase of the Hidden Forest single-family plat. Grittman stated that the second phase represents 54 units on approximately 50 acres of land. The developer is seeking R-IA zoning for this area of the plat. Grittman explained that many comments regarding Hidden Forest will also apply to the adjacent plat of Niagara Falls. Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Grittman stated that the design of the plat has been through a number of reviews between the staff and the developers. The first phase of the project was developed and approved as an R-1 plat. Grittman stated that one of the goals of this development was to make sure that the design takes advantage of a number of natural amenity factors. The applicant and staff initially looked for a roadway along the eastern boundary of the plat. It appears that wasn't a feasible option. As such, staff is supportive of the roadway extending along the wetland edge. This reduces the tree impact and provides for some public benefit along the edge. Grittman pointed out that there is also a park along the northeast edge of the wetland area. The wetland stretches into Niagara Falls, with a trail through both plats. The applicants have designed the project to capitalize on this amenity. Grittman stated that staff would prefer to shift the road further to the east, to reestablish tree cover along the pathway. The other issue Grittman reported is in regard to the front setbacks. Grittman stated that theR-lA district does allow flexibility in setback averaging, hopefully to work around natural amenities. The minimum average number must also be 35. However, Grittman noted that for this phase, the average is about 30 feet. The applicant has provided a analysis of where they could increase setback without impacting tree cover. Grittman explained that the City did not notice a variance, and the developer had not applied for one. A variance to setback would need to come back to a subsequent meeting. Grittman indicated that staff believes consideration of the plat can proceed with the setback variance considered at a future meeting. Lastly, Grittman mentioned the potential road shift near the wetland, recommending a condition that the applicant provide a detailed landscape plan, due to the significant amount of wetland and the nature of the plat in this area. Grittman stated that staff are recommending approval, referring to Exhibit Z and noting that most conditions relate to engineering review. Dragsten asked of the trees are being lost perhaps because of the narrowness of the lots and inquired whether the Commission should look at widening these lots. Grittman stated that certainly, if the lots were wider, the developer could save trees between houses. Grittman indicate that in his opinion, in this R-IA area, the lots are already 85-90 wide. He suggested that it is possible to save trees in front and side yards, but it takes effort and commitment on the part of the developer. Grittman recommended moving the road and adding trees along wetland as the best alternative, short of eliminating lots and saving clusters of trees. Dragsten asked if lots were 100 feet wide, could the developer save large more mature trees. Grittman stated that the same process would apply; that the developer would need to custom grade each lot and control where builders have access and where they store materials. Hilgart asked about the front yard setback for R-1 zoning areas. Grittman responded that it is 30'. Hilgart asked if there is a hardship to justify the setback variance. Grittman stated that it may be possible to find a hardship. The other issue is that if the plat goes to the R-1 zoning district, the developer can reduce the building design standards. Grittman stated that tree preservation could be an existing condition justifying the variance. Hilgart referred to Hillside Farm as an example of smaller lots with larger homes. Grittman noted that development was a PUD; this developer has not asked for a PUD. O'Neill stated that it may have been originally intended that R-lA lots would be custom -graded. In this case, it is more oriented toward designating a line, saving trees behind that line. The strategy here is to push the line forward to save as many trees behind that line. Hilgart stated he thinks it's a good plan, and wouldn't be opposed to it. He explained that he just wants to make sure there is a justification for the variance. Hilgart inquired about the reasoning behind the 35 foot setback in the ordinance. Grittman responded that the larger front setback promotes the idea of lot spaciousness, with averaging to allow them to move it around based on the character of the land. 0 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Spartz asked where the City is at on the annexation issue. O'Neill stated that annexation can be considered by the Council at preliminary plat when the finance plan is understood. Dragsten asked if there is a connecting road to the eastern property. Grittman confirmed. Grittman also noted the condition requesting that a stub street would connect to the adjacent parcel. Grittman stated that the engineers have brought up that when staff had originally looked at extending the road along eastern boundary line, it would have provided access to the adjacent property. However, when the road was brought back along the wetland edge, that access was lost. Staff is recommending adding back in a stub road to provide additional access to the eastern property. That comment is not in the staff report. Spartz asked if there was a specific location recommended. Grittman stated that staff would be willing to work with developer on that item. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Steve Quill, 9655 Hall Avenue, addressed the Commission. Quill stated that most of his questions had been answered, but asked if anyone knew whether this plat would be on the County grid system. O'Neill confirmed that it would be. Ann Wise, 9869 Eide Avenue NE, spoke to the Commission, explaining that she lives about one half mile east of this development. She expressed concern that these developments add 244 houses adjacent to larger lot developments. She stated that she hopes the City preserves some natural agricultural areas. Wise commented that as the City grows, she would encourage the City to look at a variety of housing, including acreage tracts. Wise indicated that her second concern is added traffic. Wise stated that she had spoken with the City's engineers, who had explained that they had done traffic studies, and there would only be about 4 more vehicles at peak times. However, she noted that their road is a blind intersection, and she is working with County on this issue. Wise stated that it is dangerous, and would become more so with the development traffic. She stated that County 39 is supposed to be adequate for the next 20 years, but will become less so with development. She encouraged the Commission to review development with that in mind. Dragsten responded that the development also includes sewer and water expansion to this area and that the City has looked at those issues in considering utility expansion. Dragsten noted that the City is also looking at an update to the comprehensive plan, which could look at large lot development. O'Neill noted to Wise and the audience that the City is looking for township and County input during the comp plan process. Grittman stated that this area is on the edge of the area that the City would consider for development. The reason the City is pursuing this development is due to the involvement with the correction of flooding in Ditch 33. Jim Biegler, 7693 90th Street NE, spoke to the Commission stating that his concern is drainage and the storm sewer line. Brad Paumen, project developer, confirmed it would be a 48-inch storm sewer. Paumen stated that he had been working with the City's engineers and his own to develop a storm sewer plan. He indicated that they would be bringing a 48" pipe through in the first phase, with an easement. Paumen stated that the existing 30" pipe isn't functioning correctly, but will be used in conjunction with the 48' pipe. Essentially, they will improve the 30" and add the 48". Beegler asked if that would go in before building permits were issued. Paumen said it would occur with first phase development. Posusta added that the storm sewer pipe is being put in at the developer's expense. 9 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Kevin Christianson, 6882 County Road 39 NE, inquired where Ditch 33 ends. Paumen explained that Ditch 33 meanders through Tyler East and comes out across County Road 39 through a culvert into a wetland area, then through a series of ponds to the Mississippi River. Christianson asked where the pipe would go. Paumen stated that that it will go through their project, then through a pipe to the river. Paumen discussed the purpose of sedimentation ponds as a method for handling storm water runoff. Christianson stated that when Ditch 33 runs, it goes through existing wetlands, and then to the river. He questioned the routing process, inquiring how many permits needed to be pulled to make that happen. Paumen explained that water will still flow along the Ditch; it is only during heavy rainfall that it will go to the storm sewer. Paumen stated that all the water from streets will go into the sedimentation pond. Storm water will go to the river. Scott Dahlke spoke representing Quality Engineering, the developer's engineer. Dahlke stated that he was working with the City Engineer to design the structure that will be placed where the new 48 inch pipe comes out. The structure will perpetuate existing flows through existing drainageways and work to divert flood water through the pipe. Dahlke explained that the structure will keep the existing wetlands alive and still provide flow for excess storm water. Christianson commented that it seems as if the City is rewarding this development for knocking down trees. Christianson stated that Ditch 33 is meant to protect the river. Posusta responded that County Commissioner Pat Sawatzke was convinced that what is going to happen in this project is beneficial to those along Ditch 33. Posusta stated that everyone at the County has agreed that this is the best case scenario to fix the Ditch 33 problems. Christianson replied that he understands this project seems makes everyone up there happy, but referring to where he lives, he stated that the City is going to give storm water a superhighway to the river. Christianson said that he is concerned that when everyone has made their money, his chance will be gone, because everytime it rains all that water comes to his backyard. He asked who is going to assure him about the engineering. Posusta encouraged Christianson to talk with Pat Sawatzke. Dragtsen stated that this plan is something that has been worked on with the County and probably the DNR. He noted that in regard to Christianson's area, the developer cannot make one area worse for the betterment of another area. Dragsten stated that the developer will need to do whatever they need to do to make the system work correctly. Paumen stated that the water is going downstream, and as such, Christianson's water shouldn't change, as he'll still have the 30" pipe. Christianson asked for written assurance regarding his drainage situation. Dragsten stated that the comments are now on record and that the City is responsible to rules and regulations just like everyone else. O'Neill noted that an environmental assessment worksheet process was completed, which included hydrology information. O'Neill explained that all appropriate governmental agencies had a chance to review that information. He indicated that the wetland characteristics will be restored to a value previous to that area being farmed. It will actually slow water, versus the Ditch basin. O'Neill cited that there had been a number of public meetings regarding this plan and he invited Christianson to sit down with the City's engineers to review the plan. Christianson stated that he just wants to be assured that he won't be flooded. Posusta stated it would be difficult to flood, since he's upstream. Christianson asked about the sanitary sewer. Dahlke illustrated lift station locations and the line down County Road 39, indicating that it would be pumped by force main to the existing gravity sewer line. He noted that there is also a second lift station in the Niagara Falls project, which 10 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 provides sewer flows for southern Hidden Forest and all of Niagara Falls. Dragsten commented that if there are any other questions on Ditch 33, he would encourage him to sit down with staff. O'Neill stated that the i i looking t n "' City s oo g a extending 90 Street to County Road 75 as another outlet. In the short term, most of the traffic will end up on 39. Paumen noted that they had explored idea of trying to buy the adjacent property for right of way to move the street out of the trees. However, the property owners were not interested, due to timing. Paumen stated that perhaps in the future, as part of a phase three, they could re -consider that option and amend the preliminary plat. Pauemn referred to the landscape plan, stating that as they are going to be doing the park in the second phase, they would like to hold off on the landscape plan until final plat. Paumen also indicated that although O'Neill stated they wouldn't be custom grading, they would try to save as many trees as possible. Dahlke asked about the additional street connection to the east. Grittman confirmed that in staff discussion, it was determined that they will need to provide for another street stub. Dahlke inquired if the third phase goes forward, could that be revisited. Grittman agreed that it could be, if the plat is changed. Dahlke asked for staff s recommendation on the setback issue. Grittman recommended coming back through with the variance request. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart thanked Paumen for not asking for a PUD and townhouses. Spartz stated that the concerns on drainage and tree preservation were worked on, and hopefully if there is a concern, it has gone and will continue to go through a formal review process. He stated that it seems as though this is a good development for this area and indicated that he echoes Hilgart's comments. Suchy stated that she is in favor of a lesser front yard setback to preserve trees. She stated that even though the City isn't going to require it, the developer should consider custom grading to preserve as many as possible. Dragsten asked if Paumen has seen Exhibit Z. Paumen confirmed. Dahlke asked about the street width comment in the area of the wetland and whether that referred to the right of way. O'Neill confirmed, stating that staff would like the developer to see if there is merit to narrow the right of way to preserve more trees. Dragsten asked if the actual width would be reduced, is that something that could be worked out between staff and engineer. O'Neill stated that it could be. Dragsten noted that this development had been subject to an EAW and related guidelines. Dragsten asked about moving road up 10 feet for additional tree plantings. Grittman responded that it would create more benefit to the public edge. Posusta stated he didn't see on Exhibit Z a condition related to signing of the temporary cul-de-sac. He said that he would like those addressed, because when people buy adjacent lots, they assume it's permanent. O'Neill explained that conservation easement posts will be required in this development's agreement; staff will add road signage to that checklist. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-IA AS PROPOSED FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIDDEN FOREST, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 11 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 Dahlke inquired whether the landscape plan could be presented at the time of final plat. O'Neill noted that at the time that the preliminary plat data that goes to Council, it is recommended that the preliminary plat be amended to address the conditions in Exhibit Z. Grittman noted a landscape plan should be required due to the treatment of the ponding areas, with the understanding it many change pending the street alignment. Grittman recommended keeping it as part of motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF HIDDEN FOREST, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. I. The final street plans shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer, including consideration of road width within the portion of the plat where tree cover may be retained by reducing width of street. 2. The single family homes shall meet all performance standards of the R-IA District as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planner's report. 3. The road in the southeast portion of the plat should be shifted 10 feet to the east to permit tree replacement planting along the wetland edge. 4. Development of the plat of Hidden Forest should be consistent with the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, including as related to the removal of trees. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan, addressing possible preservation of tree clusters or replacement of the trees that will be removed during the development process, as well as pond landscaping and other areas being disturbed by development. 6. Issues related to the wetland area are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. 7. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. A development contract is executed detailing improvements, including park construction, required as a part of the project. 9. The applicant revise the plat's road alignment to shift the road near the wetland to the east to provide a buffer tree planting area near the wetland. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 10. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and request for rezoniniz from A-O to R-lA for Nia,2ara Falls, a 75-unit single-family development. Applicant: GP Land Corporation Grittman reviewed the staff report, referring to Niagara Falls' location west of Hidden Forest. Grittman indicated that the project is proposed to be R-1A. Grittman commented that Haug Avenue and 90th Street are township roads that will be reconstructed to urban sections within this plat. Staff would recommend that the developer utilize the road bed as a berm area, to allow for planting and screening between their plat and the adjacent Sunset Ponds. Grittman stated that one isof the suggestions was to attempt to carry the screening along Haug Avenue with planting in the right of way for additional landscape screening. Grittman stated that with the items in Exhibit Z, staff believes the plat is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and R-lA zoning regulations. 12 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Referring to the conditions, Grittman stated that the applicant has indicated that they intend to meet the required setbacks. Grittman stated that staff would recommend that the trail, which connects all the way around the wetland, is entirely within the public space and does not cross private property. 10 Staff also recommend the submission of a detailed landscape plan, again due to the wetland. Grittman also noted that the public parking lot should be eliminated. Grittman explained that there is an exception area in this plat. He stated that staff has met with the developers to create a ghost plat for how that parcel could be subdivided. Grittman illustrated the ghost plat, stating that staff had wanted ensure that this property could be subdivided, when and if that owner is interested. With those comments, Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of both the rezoning and preliminary plat. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dragsten asked if the Parks Commission would want the noted public parking area. Grittman replied that there is a parking area at the Hidden Forest public park. It was felt that this lot could cause problems with circulation, and it was just better to eliminate it. Jon Bogart, Bogart Pederson Engineering, addressed the Commission representing the applicant. Bogart stated that they have responded to and resubmitted plans as related to the engineer's comments and Exhibit Z. Bogart stated that they have complied with setbacks and provided a landscape plan, supplied the berm, adjusted the trail as noted, provided additional plantings in places, and are working with Public Works on the parking area for lift station. Bogart stated that they agree with and intend to comply with all conditions. Jason and Tara Moores, 9320 Haug Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating that they are the exception property. Tara Moores stated that it is her understanding that as of the Commission meeting date, this property had not been annexed. Dragsten confirmed that to be correct. Tara Moores inquired where Haug would be reconstructed from. Grittman answered that it would be reconstructed from 95"' Street southward. Tara Moores asked if it would be wider and include curb and gutter. Grittman replied that it would, although he is unsure of the exact dimension. Tara Moores commented on the buffer, stating that she supports that idea. She noted that the plan shows a holding pond to the north of and along side their property and inquired why with all property available to the developer within his plat, they proposing a holding pond behind their property. Tara Moores stated that they do not agree with that, for safety reasons. O'Neill commented that the ponding should be reviewed. Bogart responded that the reason for the ponding location is relative to the powerline easement and storm sewer; they were placed to avoid sacrificing lots. Jason Moores commented that he doesn't see why the ponding should be so close to his property; it should be somewhere else on the developer's property. If it does need to be there, Moores inquired whether it can be fenced. O'Neill asked if there is space available to turn the pond to the north instead of south. Bogart said they could take a look at it. He stated that the City Engineer is looking at rearranging the area, which may require moving the pond. O'Neill responded to the safety question, stating that City standards maintain a shallow slope and create a shelf within the pond. Dragsten stated there could be something that could be put into the motion for review of the ponding. 13 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Tara Moores also questioned the elevation of the homes as their home is 20' higher. Dragsten replied that the elevations would be reviewed via the development's grading plan. Jason Moores asked if they would be filling the low area. Bogart stated that they are doing a significant amount of grading, raising pads, and adding drain tile. Tara Moores asked if services would be stubbed to their property. Bogart indicated that they would be, noting their locations Moores asked if the developer is proposing single family homes. Drasgten stated that plat is laid out for single family. O'Neill also confirmed that zoning would restrict the type of housing to single family. Tara Moores commented on the proposed public parking area. Dragsten stated that parking area is recommended to be removed. Tara Moores asked what kind of controls would be in place for construction in terms of the hours. She noted problems with construction at Sunset Ponds. O'Neill stated that there are designated starting times within the ordinance, and that there are standards for watering ground when it's dry. He encouraged her to communicate with the City on these issues and explained that a construction observer will also be on -site. Tara M000res referred to the three phases proposed by Paumen and asked if Hidden Forest has to be done before Niagara Falls. Jason Moores stated that the question was in relationship to when utilities would come through. Bogart answered that Niagara Fall's utilities will be available through permanent and temporary lift stations, and noted other utility locations. Tara Moores inquired how far underneath the powerline they would be able to go with the cul-de- sac if they wanted to develop. Bogart illustrated the ghost plat, stating that he is not aware of any restrictions about streets under powerlines. Jason Moores stated that he just wants to be sure utilities would be there when they decide to develop. Grittman stated that the purpose of the ghost plat isn't to prescribe development, but to show that there is a way to develop the site. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz commented that number 8 in Exhibit Z requests looking at cul-de-sac spacing in relationship to the Moore property. . Dragsten clarified that all the property around the east side would go to urban street section. Bogart confirmed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-IA, AS PROPOSED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NIAGARA FALLS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Spartz confirmed that the developer would look at additional screening and berming. Bogart stated that City Engineer is looking at the road areas and that they would accommodate if needed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NIAGARA FALLS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW. 14 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 1. The final street plans shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. 2. The applicant realigns the trail on the eastern perimeter of the wetland to avoid all single family lots. 3. The single family homes shall meet all performance standards of the R-IA District as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planner's report. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for review and approval consistent with the staff report of 2/7/06. 5. Development of the plat of Niagara Falls should be consistent with the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 6. Issues related to the wetland area are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. 7. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. The off-street parking lot is properly screened and landscaped. 9. The applicant addresses park and trail changes as directed in this report. 10. The ghost plat for the "Moore" property is revised per comments in this report. 11. The applicant enters into a development agreement with the City addressing all improvements, including park construction improvements as identified in the proposed plans. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 11. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access and Drives and for Drive -through facility for Warnert Retail, a commercial retail development in a B-3 (Highwav Business) District. Miller Architects & Builders, Inc. Grittman presented the staff report, discussing the size and location of the two proposed buildings, along with access points. Grittman explained that the two lots would share access and parking and that each building included a drive -through. Grittman stated that the site plan proposal meets the zoning ordinance for the B-3 district. Overall, Grittman stated that staff believe the project layout is well -designed, and reported that staff have had a number of meetings with the applicant to discuss the project. Grittman indicated that there are some recommended conditions related to the project, which staff has discussed with the applicant. Staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate stacking space, particularly on the southern lot. Staff have recommended one drive through for Building A, although the proposed retailer will most likely suggest they need both. Staff also recommend sliding the intersection to align the exit lane with the access onto Cedar Street. Grittman noted that the project requires the CUP for the shared access and parking, applicable to both lots. Grittman stated that in terms of landscaping, the code establishes the number of required perimeter plantings, which in this case is 32 trees. The applicant has proposed shrubs as an alternative to be counted toward the required plantings, which the ordinance does accommodate. However, in this case, Grittman explained that it appears that there is an opportunity to do additional landscaping on the Cedar Street side to meet the tree requirement. Grittman commented that there are conditions related to the architectural appearance of the Cedar Street building facade. Staff is recommending false windows and other architectural treatments on that facade, which the applicant has agreed to. 15 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Grittman also noted that the applicants have indicated that they will be seeking additional signage, which may require a variance. In the alternative, it is presumed the sign plan will meet the code. is The photometric plan will be reviewed by the building official for conformance with the code. With those comments, Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat and CUP. Dragsten inquired whether moving the entrance back would affect traffic moving down Cedar Street. Grittman stated that the intent is to get traffic to turn into the inbound lane rather than exit lane, creating the least amount of traffic at that location. Dragsten asked if traffic would be restricted to one way. Grittman confirmed that it would be one-way traffic, which helps eliminate crossing movements Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Reggie Fraley and Stuart Bailey spoke to the Commission on behalf of Miller Architects, applicant. Fraley clarified that the CUP request for the northern lot is for one two-lane drive -through. In response to the questions regarding traffic patterns, Fraley stated that they will work with staff to look at alternative plans to produce a better flow pattern. Fraley indicated that they are fine with adding a pedestrian crosswalk connection to west side of property. Fraley stated that they are intend to bring back variance request for signage if it is needed. He said that they concur with the balance of the conditions and are willing to work with staff on those items. Bailey stated that they will look at backside of Building A in terms of architectural detailing. Bailey also commented that there will be adequate space along Cedar Street to accommodate the additional trees as recommended. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Suchy asked what their intent was in relationship to meeting parking calculation requirements. Bailey stated that they recognize that they are short, which is one of the reasons for the CUP. In working with City staff on the circulation, it may be that they lose some additional space. Grittman responded that the shared parking more than makes up for their parking demand. Additionally, when the buildings are completely occupied, it is expected that based on use, their parking demand will drop. Dragsten confirmed there would be a shared parking agreement. Spartz asked if in lieu of two drive-throughs, would the applicant be willing to turn around the drive -through to aid in circulation. Grittman noted that the driver would be on the wrong side. Dragsten noted that they had done a similar configuration at Snyder's with a pneumatic tube. Grittman stated that the applicant had indicated that they would rather work with it the way it is designed. Hilgart asked who the national retail tenant is. Fraley stated they could not divulge that information at this point. Dragsten commented on the design of the building, stating that he appreciates the Cedar Street considerations. He noted that is consistent with requirements recently requested on other Cedar Street projects. Dragsten stated it would be nice to see something in addition to canopies, such as architectural changes in the buildings. Bailey stated that their intent is to differentiate the masonry. He said there will be quite a bit of variety in the building material. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES. 16 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THROUGH WINDOWS AND JOINT ACCESS AND DRIVE ON LOT I, BLOCK 1 OF WARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS MOTION SHOULD BE MADE CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: l . A shared access agreement and shared parking agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City. 2. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the buildings and site area to meet code requirements (32 trees). All landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of one year landscaping guarantee. 3. The building elevations shall be similar throughout the entire exterior of "Building B" with false windows on the eastern potion of the building and a parapet wall to hide rooftop units. 4. The site and building plan shall have only one drive through for each building, to help mitigate a major traffic concern between the two proposed buildings. 5. Provide a crosswalk between the sidewalks on the front side of each building to allow safe pedestrian travel. 6. Extend sidewalks to east property line of each site to connect with future city sidewalk. 7. Proposed signage is subject to further review, including consideration of variance requests at a future Planning Commission meeting. 0 8. The photometric plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Building Official. 9. The grading, drainage, erosion control, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Spartz inquired whether the approval would include a recommendation on the drive-throughs. Grittman stated the motion should clarify what the Commission would recommend in that regard. Hilgart stated that his motion would allow two for the northern lot, per the site plan. COMMISSIONER SUCHY RESCINDED HER MOTION TO SECOND, STATING THAT SHE PREFERRED ONE -DRIVE THROUGH AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT CONDITIONS. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE -THROUGH WINDOWS AND JOINT ACCESS AND DRIVE ON LOT I, BLOCK I OF WARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS MOTION SHOULD BE MADE CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 17 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 l . A shared access agreement and shared parking agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City. 2. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the buildings and site area to meet code requirements (32 trees). All landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of one year landscaping guarantee. 3. The building elevations shall be similar throughout the entire exterior of "Building B" with false windows on the eastern potion of the building and a parapet wall to hide rooftop units. 4. The site and building plan shall have only one drive through for each building, to help mitigate a major traffic concern between the two proposed buildings. 5. Provide a crosswalk between the sidewalks on the front side of each building to allow safe pedestrian travel. 6. Extend sidewalks to east property line of each site to connect with future city sidewalk. 7. Proposed signage is subject to further review, including consideration of variance requests at a future Planning Commission meeting. 8. The photometric plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Building Official. 9. The grading, drainage, erosion control, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIOENR SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 3-I, WITH COMMISSIONER HILGART IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE -THROUGH WINDOWS AND JOINT ACCESS AND DRIVE ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF WARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS MOTION SHOULD BE MADE CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. A shared access agreement and shared parking agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City. 2. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the buildings and site area to meet code requirements (32 trees). All landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of one year landscaping guarantee. 3. The building elevations shall be similar throughout the entire exterior of "Building B" with false windows on the eastern potion of the building and a parapet wall to hide rooftop units. 4. The site and building plan shall have only one drive through for each building, to help mitigate a major traffic concern between the two proposed buildings. 5. Provide a crosswalk between the sidewalks on the front side of each building to allow safe pedestrian travel. 6. Extend sidewalks to east property line of each site to connect with future city sidewalk. 7. Proposed signage is subject to further review, including consideration of variance requests at a future Planning Commission meeting. 8. The photometric plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Building Official. 9. The grading, drainage, erosion control. and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City 0 Engineer. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City. 18 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. is12. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for and Amendment to Planned Unit Development for Open and Outdoor Storage and for Outdoor Sales and Displav in a B-3 (Hivhwav Business) District and for Additional Used Automobile/Licht Truck Sales & Disvlay. Applicant: Walt's Pawn and Bargain Center Grittman reviewed the staff report relating to the request, explaining that the Commission had most recently reviewed an amendment to PUD for the Gould Auto facility. In this request, the applicant is seeking an amendment to address activities relating to the southern building, formerly occupied by Fastenal. Grittman referred to the applicant's site plan, stating that it includes a number of elements. He stated that the applicant is requesting an outdoor display area over 2500 square feet, to be used for the display of lawn and garden equipment, contractor equipment and motorsport items. The applicant is also requesting 25 spaces for the outdoor display of vehicles, boats, trailers and machinery. Additionally, the applicant has requested approximately 3975 square feet of Outdoor Storage area in the rear of the building. Grittman stated that the property is subject to a number of requirements in relationship to these requests. Parking requirements identified by code require 1 space per 200 square feet of building area. Grittman relayed that Auto Sales is limited to 5%, of the lot area, with a paved sales area. Additionally, the sales and storage areas cannot take up the required parking space. Grittman noted that outdoor storage areas are required to be surfaced or grassed, with no lighting directly visible from the street. Grittman explained that Outdoor Sales uses are allowed for up to 30% of the square footage of the principal building, subject to required parking area. Grittman stated that because of the number of proposed uses, the site plan doesn't comply with a number of the noted requirements. Based on calculations for the building size, the applicant is required to supply 19 parking spaces. Grittman stated that the plan shows only 8 spaces. Grittman stated that the remainder of what would be parking area is occupied by display space. He also noted that there is a lack of landscaping on site. He indicated that while the Auto Sales use as noted is allowed, and appears the size meets requirements, the applicant is still short of parking. Essentially, the applicant needs to reconcile the sales areas with the parking supply on the site. In regards to the Outdoor Storage use, Grittman stated that there is a screening issue. The applicant is proposing a chain link fence with slats. Grittman noted that for commercial areas, the City has often required wood as part of the screening component of the CUP. Finally, Grittman reported that the Outdoor Storage use is limited to 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use. In this case, the applicant would be allowed 1200 square feet maximum. In considering the PUD, Grittman stated the past uses of the site were retail and office uses. With the additional outdoor uses, it appears that site cannot comply with the ordinance relating to the additional uses. Therefore, Grittman stated that staff is not recommending approval at this time. Suchy asked about the parking requirement based on building size. She inquired whether the calculation could be based on what the uses within the building are. Grittman stated that if staff could look at floor plan, the calculation would differentiate between retail space versus mechanical or storage spaces. Hilgart inquired who the PUD was granted to. Grittman stated that it was granted to the property owner and most recently reviewed through the Gould request. This applicant occupies property included within the existing PUD. Dragsten explained that car sales were not approved for this building under that PUD. A PUD was used because of shared parking and access between the two lots. Hilgart asked if the PUD was approved based on having cars outside. Grittman stated that 19 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 original PUD allowed indoor uses for this lot, with required customer and employee parking as applicable to each lot within the PUD. Dragsten asked whether the Goulds PUD amendment covered only changes made to the northern half Grittman confirmed that the Gould PUD items related specifically to their portion of the site. Suchy asked if the outdoor storage issue is different as it applies to General Rental or Moon Motors in terms of zoning. O'Neill stated that they have both of those site have a CUP for Open and Outdoor Storage, but to the extent that they are complying is a separate enforcement issue. Suchy stated that when approving Gould, the City approved the PUD based on 25 spaces. She stated that when she visited the site, there were many more. O'Neill commented staff would try to review that, but noted that enforcement resources were somewhat limited at this point. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Tim Bell addressed the Commission as the representative for Walt's Pawn & Gun. Bell stated that they had worked with the City to try to find out what they were doing wrong, and what needs to be changed. He stated that Mr. Thompson has been working on this application for a year and keeps getting turned down. Bell stated that they would like this to be approved, within the conditions outlined within the zoning ordinances. Bell responded to staff s comments, stating that Gould was supposed to be taking care of a portion of the landscaping. He noted that there are some existing trees and that bushes will be placed along chain link fence area. Bell indicated that the biggest concern seems to be the parking. He commented that the applicant is currently only using a 37' x 50' area of the building for display. Based on that calculation, they only need 8-9 spaces. Dragsten asked if the 8 spaces are along the Highway 25 side of the building. Bell replied that they are along the south side of the building. Bell noted that they may need to be shifted to meet the 5' spacing requirement. He stated that they could also add parking along the north side of building. Dragsten inquired about the use of the area along Highway 25. Bell replied that the area is proposed to be the display area for new and used 4-wheeler and lawn equipment. Bell stated that in terms of asking them to scale down the display area, they can do that now with the information from the staff report. He stated that they could bring the display area down to 1240', or 30%. Bell stated that apparently they meet the other outdoor storage requirements, except for the chain link fence. He commented that wood requires a lot of maintenance and repair and isn't secure. Dragsten asked if they would be willing to install screening. Bell stated that the only part that wouldn't be screened would be what faces Gould. Bell commented that they have 1600 of building display area; the rest of the area is storage within the building. So, in his view, the only thing they aren't in compliance with, with just a few minor changes, would be landscaping. Dragsten asked for clarification on parking. Grittman stated that if a floor plan is provided, staff can rerun the parking calculation. Dragsten inquired if they are willing to comply with landscaping requirements. Bell asked if shrubbery can qualify for meeting landscaping requirements. Dragsten stated that staff would give credit for what applies within the code. Dragsten asked if they are willing to comply with the additional recommended items. Bell stated that they do need the highway frontage exposure for their display area. Dragsten stated that the while the Commission doesn't want to obstruct allowable outdoor sales, it has to meet code requirements. Dragsten stated that the automobile sales discussion may be moot, pending parking calculations. 20 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Randal Thompson, owner of Walt's Pawn and Gun, addressed the Commission, stating that in addition to these parking spaces, there are other parking areas. Bell noted that the City is looking for designated customer and employee parking. Bell stated that they could turn in a floor plan as requested and that with a few minor changes, he stated that he feels they could meet requirements. Thompson stated that realistically, he is looking to be able to put goods out for sale. He stated that most of the building is used for storage. Dragsten indicated that staff and the applicant would need to review the square footage of sales area, the additional and existing landscaping additional and existing, the parking calculations, and the outdoor storage area. Thompson stated that they are asking for exemption to keep the chain link fence without landscaping on north, and that they have no problem reducing down to 1200 square feet on display area. O'Neill stated that there should be no parking on grassy areas. Bell stated that they are not proposing to have cars in the grassy area. He indicated that area would be for boats, and trailers. Grittman stated that in that case, all of those display areas would go against the 1200' of allowable storage. Thompson asked if he took out the automobile sales area, if they would be allowed to store items in the grassy area. Grittman answered that the trailers still can't be on the grassy area. Dragsten stated that perhaps they applicants should come back once the adjustments are made. Bell stated that they have had trouble getting answers from staff. Dragsten stated that the Commission wants to move this forward. O'Neill commented that we have a good start and that this is the best level of information, received so far, so staff can zero in on what would be allowable. O'Neill stated that the Commission can table the item, or give staff latitude to go forward to City Council after resolving some of these issues with the applicant. Dragsten replied that he would like to see it come back. Thompson asked for temporary approval. Bell commented that the main i i p p y pp o issue s to work with ordinance in terms of what's proposed. Drasgten stated if it moved forward, it wouldn't be a final approval, it would just be a recommendation with direction to work with staff. Grittman confirmed it would have to go to Council. O'Neill stated that any existing outdoor storage is in violation of the ordinance at this point. Thompson stated that he believes they could have this ironed out within a few days. O'Neill stated the critical point will be the amount of sales area. . Suchy stated that she would like to see the applicant work with staff. Bell confirmed that they could have up to 1200 square feet of storage area in various locations without a variance. Tim Buster, representative for Walt's Pawn & Gun, inquired whether the automobile area is separate from outdoor display area and the vehicles and licensed automotive. Grittman stated that staff would need to look at the ordinance. O'Neill noted that if automotive, it needs to be paved. Bell re -stated that they would need a variance to go beyond the allowable square footage. Grittman noted that a hardship finding would be required for a variance. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO PUD, BASED ON A FINDING • THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH EACH OF THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE AS SPECIFIED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO DETERMINE WHAT AREAS CONSTITUTE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND THE 21 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 CONDITION THAT THEY APPLICANT WILL NOT GO OVER 1280 SQUARE FEET OF DISPLAY AREA. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Dragsten directed the applicant to work with staff to move forward to the City Council. 13. Consideration to review staff application of ordinance �zoverniniz temporary signs. O'Neill provided background information relating to the origination of the temporary sign ordinance. The Council and Planning Commission had updated the code, giving property owners 40 days per year for temporary signage. The owner would be issue a permit, which needed to be posted. O'Neill explained that what has happened is a proliferation of larger or fluorescent signs. He stated that some of these are permitted, others are not. O'Neill reported that there is some confusion among those with larger properties or those with multiple tenants about how the 40 days applies. Staff has interpreted the code such that if you have parcel, you get 40 days and it is up to the parcel owner to distribute those days among businesses. However, staff is seeing that business owners are looking at them for permanent visibility. O'Neill stated that he is asking the Commission to give staff some guidance on this issue. The other issue is use of temporary signage by non -profits. O'Neill stated that right now, non- profit groups are renting signs and finding a property owner who will allow them to place the sign on their site. The way staff has interpreted the code, if you are a property owner, that use is part of the 40 days. The point of the sign system is to create an even playing field so that everyone can benefit. In terms of more permanent visibility, there has been discussion related providing an ongoing presence for specific areas, possibly through a monument sign. Dragsten stated that he thinks one sign per lot is a good idea, as typically, these signs should be used for construction or special events. Dragsten indicated that he didn't know if it should be extended to more than 40 days, as there are many other signage opportunities. Suchy agreed on one sign per parcel. She stated concern regarding the downtown area and 7t" street area, noting that they aren't visible. She indicated that she likes the idea of one monument sign for these types of areas. O'Neill stated that although that idea goes against the ordinance for off -premise signs, if done in a tasteful way, it may help everyone. Josh Dickinson, 16 West Walnut Street, spoke to the Commission representing Old School Customs. Dickinson commented that for those who hadn't stopped in to their store, it was perhaps they didn't know where they were located. Dickinson stated that other than the temporary signs, he doesn't have away to pull in traffic. He stated that they are looking for Commission's help on this. Holli Schillewaert, owner of Dragonfly, agreed with Dickinson's comments and supported Suchy's idea. Schillewaert asked O'Neill about hanging banners from businesses as signs. O'Neill noted that private banners cannot be hung from public fixtures or in the right of way. IsO'Neill referenced sandwich boards as another available signage option. 22 Planning Commission Agenda 02/07/06 Randal Thompson commented that as a city grows, if you enact a restrictive temporary signage code, it handicaps retailers in strip centers. He stated that if you subjugate situation from a landowner to the renter, you're handicapping ability of business people to maintain positive growth in their businesses. Thompson reported that temporary signs really do bring people in. He recommended widening the ability for the strip mall to put up a monument. Dragsten asked what other communities have done. Grittman responded that it varies greatly. O'Neill stated that based on feedback from Commission, staff will continue to enforce the code as they have been. He noted that perhaps as part of the comprehensive planning process, there will be further direction as to what we want City to look like. Suchy volunteered to serve as a representative to research this issue. 14. Roundabout Conference Schumann stated that he City Engineer had requested that information regarding atn upcoming roundabout conference be provided for the Commission's reference. Anyone interested in attending should contact her directly. 15. Comprehensive Plan Request for Proposal O'Neill stated that a draft copy of the request for proposal for the comprehensive plan update had been included in the Commission's packet for reference. RFP's will be due back by March 9th. At that point, it is expected that a subcommittee of staff, Council and the Commission would review the RFP's and narrow the firms for final selection. Spartz and Dragsten volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. 16. Consideration to set date to interview Planning Commission applicants and to set date for regular March meetinv. The Commission discussed this item and rescheduled the March regular Planning Commission meeting to Wednesday, March 8th at 6:00 p.m. The Commission set a 4:30 p.m., February 13th date and time for interviewing the prospective Planning Commission candidates. 17. Adiourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. A 1JA1UWX----- -A Angela c mannjcortrW 23