Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-02-2006MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, 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. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday. April 4th, 2006. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, APRIL 4', 2006. is MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. • 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. O'Neill clarified that item number 8 actually pertains to an update on the YMCA property in relationship to the comprehensive plan amendment considered at the previous meeting. O'Neill added as item 9 consideration to appoint two members to serve on the comprehensive plan update task force. Dragsten asked about the informational flyer included in the Commission's packet. Dragsten indicated interest in attending the comprehensive plan session. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Rosewood Heights, an 8-unit townhome unit development in an R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residential) District. Applicant: Minnesota Development Agency. LLC 1 Kimberly Thompson, NAC, illustrated the site, stating that the concept design is for 8 townhome units. The layout includes two 4-unit structures with a combination of side and front loaded garages along a 20' drive aisle. Thompson stated that for a PUD, the ordinance requirements allow for flexibility from performance standards, under the understanding the site and building design will be held to a higher standard. The side -load garage has been incorporated for that purpose. Thompson noted that while a 20' drive aisle design is allowed, it allows for no on -street parking. The City required 5 parking spaces per unit in a recently proposed concept stage PUD. Thompson reported that this concept allows for only 4 spaces, about 5 spaces short of the actual requirement for guest parking. Thompson indicated that during a review meeting with the applicant, they stated that they could provide an off-street parking bay for more guest parking. Staff also is concerned that the dead-end drive -aisle does not provide for easy garbage or fire access. The driveway design, especially for -the end - units, presents a difficult turning radius. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to look at widening the drive aisle. Thompson stated that the density of the site is 7.2 units per acre, while by comparison, the density for the original plat of the City is approximately 5 units per acre. Thompson also noted that the concept shown illustrates a limited amount of open space. Thompson explained that another significant issue that will need to be addressed is that by vacating the Palm Street right of way, the City would be cutting off potential access to the lot to the west. A private street would eliminate the access, as well as potential access for properties to the east and west of the site. Engineering staff is looking at options on storm water issues, as there are some concerns regarding drainage in the area. Thompson stated that the applicant is interested in possibly doing a mirror image of this concept on the opposite side of the street, which would limit setbacks for both rear and front yard and on -street parking. Schibonski inquired who owns the Palm Street right of way. Thompson replied that the City owns it, and would need to work out an agreement with property owners if vacated. O'Neill stated that if the City likes the plan, they could work out a deal with the applicant. Dragsten asked if the street were vacated, would a cross easement be put in place for access to the adjoining property. O'Neill responded that is an option. Dragsten asked if this plan has been updated since staff made comments on the site plans. O'Neill stated that while it hasn't been, the applicants have indicated willingness to respond to staff s concerns. For example, the applicant has indicated they are willing to put in a dumpster enclosure to solve the garbage access issue and would work with staff and the fire department on the fire access. 0 Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. 2 Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Matt Froelich, Minnesota Development Agency, addressed the Commission. Froelich stated that most of the issues have been discussed and can be addressed. Froelich stated that they will need to bring a hydrant into the development, and can provide a 28' street section to accommodate parking. He stated that as the units will be condos, there will be an association to take care of garbage removal. Froelich stated that in response to access, cross -easements are probably the best way to handle access to other properties. Froelich showed an alternate sketch, noting that if they pave to the lot line, it also accommodates a turn around. Dragsten stated that he doesn't see anything that would stop the project; that the concept gives the applicant direction on whether to move forward. Suchy referenced the ghost plat, stating that because of the area, she has the impression it might be too dense. Suchy asked if there a chance he would do single family. Froelich stated he doesn't see the ghost plat happening as they would have had to tighten setbacks. He indicated that he wants to concentrate on this project. Suchy asked if the concept would include sidewalks, pathways, or centralized area for gathering. Froelich referred to a possible ponding area as an open space amenity, stating that they have tried to work on how to get rid of the water. Froelich stated that in their opinion, it is a City problem. Suchy asked if they will landscape and maintain both the front and back of the units. Froelich confirmed they would. He stated that the associated would plow the streets, shovel drives, take car of garbage, maintenance, etc. Suchy stated that she likes the concept of having economical housing for seniors and likes that the applicant tried to side -load. She indicated that she does have concerns about the elderly making the turns. Froelich stated they would work on that, they had included the side -load did it for aesthetic purposes. Suchy commented on the garage size. She inquired if these are units for the elderly, would Froelich consider moving the unit back to make them larger. Froelich stated that they could, although the types of items that fill up a garage may be ruled out by the association. Suchy stated her concern is for wheelchairs or walkers. Froelich stated that the rear yard setbacks will need to be confirmed in making the garages larger. Spartz asked if they have a cost per unit at this time. Froelich stated that they are age - targeted affordable senior housing. Spartz asked how the applicant plans to keep it affordable, and still meet the standards of a PUD. Froelich stated that the affordability comes from the size, as the units are about 1100 square feet. Froelich explained that the unit size and the City delineating the right of way would help keep the units under $150,000. Spartz stated that storm water is a concern and is glad that they plan to address it. Spartz commented that he thinks the road does need to be 28' and agreed that the garage sizes are small for handicap accessibility. Spartz also noted some concern regarding density. Dragsten asked Spartz if he wanted the garages to be the minimum code allowed by code. Spartz confirmed. 3 Hilgart asked if they make road 28', would they lose some of the front yard setback. Froelich responded that the road would be moved to the east instead. Right now, it is five feet off the property line. Hilgart stated that he also would like to see the garages at 450 square feet. Froelich responded that they can look at that. Hilgart inquired what the maximum density for this district is. O'Neill responded that the standard is 1 unit per 6,000 square feet, so the actual allowable density isn't far off what is allowed in the R-2. Hilgart stated that his concern was that with the recent Ruff Auto PUD, the City indicated that it would not allow that kind of density. He stated that the City needs to reconcile that decision with this project. Hilgart asked what amenities this project has that would allow for a PUD in terms of the quality of the buildings, etc. Froelich stated that the standard seems to be floating and that he doesn't know how to exceed a standard that doesn't exist. He commented that the exterior -materials will be upgraded. Froelich indicated that the key is to remember that this is a redevelopment and they need to work with the site. Dragsten asked if Hilgart's concern is with the density and lack of open space. Hilgart confirmed. Froelich stated that their green space exceeds the green space standard, although with a 28' road, that changes. Dragsten stated that the question is the amenities for this number of units. Schibonski commented that he likes what Froelich is trying to do for seniors who want to be in the downtown area. Schibonski stated that the garage size was a concern and is an issue for elderly people. Parking was also a concern, which Froelich is starting to address. Engineering is an issue for him in terms of storm water, which needs to be addressed at the next level. Schibonski also stated that garbage at the end of street in dumpster can be a concern for seniors. Joint driveways make more sense. Froelich asked if 28' street accommodates a garbage truck backing up. O'Neill stated that they are trying to eliminate backing u; that is something we can look and talk about. Schibonski agreed that the density seems too high for this space. Schibonski indicated that he is still trying to grasp what kind of open space amenity the City would be getting for the PUD. Dragsten asked what the front and side yard is in this plan. O'Neill stated that this can be somewhat confusing to explain. The front yard is the shortest side frotning on a public street, but the way the buildings are configured, the front of these buildings is the side. According to the letter of the code, the plan meets our basic perimeter requirements. Froelich stated that the backyard is 30'. Schibonski asked if 4f Street is the front. O'Neill confirmed. Dragsten indicated that he also had questions about the garages sizes and thinks they should meet the code minimum. He referenced the access issue, noting that they had talked about cross easements. Dragsten stated that the stacking shouldn't be a problem with the 28' road. Dragsten inquired about the roof pitches, as the plans don't contain that information. Froelich stated that the overall roofline would be 7:12 with 8:12 gables. Froelich stated that if we change the garage fronts, they will need to work on architectural detail. Dragsten asked for the size of the rear patios. Froelich answered that they are 7' x 10'. Drgasten stated it would be nice if they were a bit larger. Dragsten commented that when this comes back, the Commission will be looking for an intense landscape plan. 4 • Dragsten asked about building materials. Froelich stated that what is shown in red will be brick, although the color has not been not determined. The tan will be architectural vinyl with shakes. Froelich stated that the garage doors are standard raised with windows. Dragsten commented that the roofline should be broken up. Dragsten stated that his other concern is density. It is a redevelopment area, but at the same time, his concern is the number of units and then making them blend into the neighborhood. He indicated that the project won't blend no matter what, but to be less obtrusive, 8 units is a concern. Suchy asked if it would help to move the buildings back. Dragsten stated that perhaps he can offset the buildings. Froelich responded that as far as fitting in, the south side is commercial and short of one house, there are apartments in the area. O'Neill stated that the lot area per unit is close to standard required. Posusta noted that the applicant has provided more than the required amount of green space. Schibonski clarified that widening the road takes most of that out. Posusta stated that the Commission has to realize where this project is located. Dragsten stated that the Commission is looking at how this will blend with older single family homes in the area. Spartz stated that he would suggest 6 units to meet PUD standards. Hilgart asked if the applicant increases the garage size and width of road, what the PUD would be for. O'Neill stated that a PUD would still apply because they don't have access to a public street and would need an association. Hilgart stated that in the end, the City would get an association -maintained development, with little variation from the code. Hilgart stated that he doesn't have a big problem with density, if it falls in line with the code. He commented that his issue is consistency with previous reviews. O'Neill clarified that 4-6 units is the direction we gave developers for the Ruff project, as well. Thompson pointed out that these are also smaller units. Dragsten summarized that the major issues that the applicant will need to address at development stage are the unit count, patio size, setbacks, drive aisle width, garage size, open space and landscaping. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH COMMENTS MADE AT THE HEARING, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE CITY' S INTENT FOR PUD DESIGN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Commissioner Suchy excused herself from the meeting. 5 6. Public Hearinia — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storaize, Open and Outdoor Sales and DisWav and Minor Automobile Repair in a B- 4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Jeff s Dream, LLC/Moon Motors Thomspon presented the staff report, illustrating the project's location. Thompson stated that the guidelines for each of the conditional use permits were outlined within the staff report. The applicants have met the majority of the requirements, so Thompson indicated that her comments would be limited to the remaining issues outlined within the conditions of approval. Thompson reported that staff had met with the applicants to review the conditions. The applicant is willing to provide fence detail for the outdoor storage area, which staff has also requested to be paved. The applicants indicated that they are willing to work with staff -on that issue. The site plan meets the minimum parking requirements, but does require one additional handicap space. Thompson stated that the landscape plans show two boulder display pads which will be visible from the freeway; the exact design will be determined later. Thompson stated that the total area of five product identification signs will be considered as one sign to meet the code for number of signs allowed. While the entire banner as one sign exceeds the code limits area area allowed, staff is willing to consider the area of each sign separately in terms of area in order to conform. Thompson reported that another issue is access for semis into the truck bay. The applicants have revised their plan to widen this area and remove a parking space to allow for movements. Staff would jrequest confirmation of the turning radius. Also, the lighting standards will need to be landscaping with the parking lot islands. Thompson noted that grading, drainage and erosion control plans are being reviewed and that the applicant will need to comply with all building regulations in relationship to fuel. Dragsten inquired about the test track. Thompson stated that the applicants have indicated that they do not have an exact design, but it may be covered with a rubber mulch. Schibonski asked about a photometric plan for the open and outdoor storage area. Thompson illustrated where the standard would be and what City standards are. Schibonski clarified that they would need to convert one spot to a handicap space and questioned whether it was included in the total parking calculation. Thompson referred to the service enclosure which had been added and noted that the applicant would be updating their parking calculations to correspond to that addition. Drgatsen suggested they add the revised calculations as a part of Exhibit Z. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. George Fantauzza, Nelson Building and Development, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Fantauzza explained that they have revised the site plan in response to staff s comments. Fantauzza noted that the each of the trailer parking spaces 2 would actually count as two. He stated that they will redo the parking counts, which they intend to meet. Fantauzza referred to the site plan, indicating that they are trying to design the site to also accommodate a future building pad. The contours of the site dictated where the building would be located. The building sits at highest part of property facing I-94. Fantauzza noted that they would submit turning radius information to staff on the truck bay. Landscaping efforts are focused on the building sides, with low grasses at the front for visibility. The intent is to have some mounts for display purposes. Fantauzza stated that the test track will not be used by the public, it will be used for the mechanics. He indicated that the applicants would like to have a discussion about paving within the fenced area. The fence will be a high grade steel fence with whatever necessary for screening, but there is concern about black top. Fantauzza briefly reviewed the elevations and materials of the building with the Commission. Fantuazza noted that people are not going to see a lot of the back of the building. Schibonski asked what the test track would be made of as noise is a concern. Joel Erickson, Moon Motorsports, addressed the Commission. Erickson stated that he had the test track area in mind for ATV use. As it wouldn't be a dedicated track, it would possibly just be green grass, or mulch and wood chips. Fantauzza stated that the intent is to stay as environmentally friendly as possible. Schibonski clarified that employees would not be using it. Erickson confirmed it would just be a mechanic area. Schibonski indicated that he has no concern about that use. Dragsten asked about paving the storage area. Fantauzza stated that it is a completely fenced -in area on grade with the employee pavement. It is intended for new trailer sales and machine cartons which are recycled. Fantauzza stated that they can pave it, but it will be out of public view, and screened with opaque fencing. Fantauzza suggested Class 5 as an alternative. Schibonski asked about the conditional use permit for minor auto repair. O'Neill stated that use is what fits their motorcycle repair best by code. Schibonski stated that he doesn't have a problem with a durable surface material rather than asphalt in the fenced storage area. O'Neill asked Fantauzza to describe the band of trees along Chelsea. Fantauzza responded that the trees are along the employee parking area. They are planning to leave in the balance of the front area in a natural state, as that is back of building. Drasgten asked Fantauzza if he had seen Exhibit Z and if there were any issues meeting the conditions. Fantauzza replied that he only concern was the outdoor storage surface. Dragsten asked if the building would be constructed of tip -up concrete. Fantauzza confirmed. Dragsten asked about the columns material. Fantauzza responded that they would be made of composite aluminum panel. The building would be white, with aluminum, metal and glass accents. 7 Dragsten asked about the back of building, as it faces Chelsea. Fantauzza responded that there will be vertical spacing to break the back up. Dragsten inquired about the location of the trash enclosure. Fantauzza illustrated the location, hidden behind loading dock. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz recognized that they have made provisions for extending parking, which shows forethought and makes sense. He stated that he would still like to add to Exhibit Z the requirement for revised parking calculations for staff oversight. Schibonski stated that he did not believe a hard surface would be needed in the fended storage area, as long as it doesn't create dust. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO ALLOW FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY, AND LIGHT AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. 1. The applicant shall provide design details of proposed fencing. 2. The applicant shall verify the turning radius for trucks entering and exiting the loading 40 dock. 3. The applicant shall provide at least one additional space for handicapped parking. 4. The outdoor storage area shall be covered with a Class 5 surface — curbing is not required. 5. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting standard is landscaped. 6. The total area of the five individual product identification signs and one wall business identification sign shall equal 100 square feet or less. 7. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plans are subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, the applicants shall comply with safety installations in accordance with the City Building Official and Fire Department. 9. Revised parking calculations are to be provided to illustrate adequate parking as noted. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Dragsten asked what they will do with old building. Erickson stated that they are not planning on selling the building at this time. Commissioner Suchy rejoined the meeting. 7. Public Heariniz — Consideration of a request for an. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance reWatim directional simajae or identification sins for institutional uses in tothe P-S, Public Semi -Public District. Apulicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church E? • Thompson presented the staff report, stating that by the current sign regulations, the applicant is allowed one identification sign. In this case, the applicant is seeking an amendment to allow two more signs, which creates a conflict with both size and setback. To allow the signs as proposed by the applicant, the City needs to amend one of two regulations. Staff would recommend an amendment to the number of institutional and identification signs rather than directional signage. Dragsten inquired how much further the two signs would need to come back. Thompson stated that they may be within public ROW. Anderson stated that they are on private property. Schumann recommended reviewing the site survey to determine location. Spartz asked how the applicant's current sign fits within the ordinance. Thompson stated that the current sign fits within the ordinance requirements. The corner sign is 18 square feet. The two proposed are 36 square feet each. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Anderson commented on behalf of Resurrection Church that the signs proposed are consistent with what is happening in progressive churches in trying to give a visual image to those who pass by. The major part of the signs proposed are actually interchangeable banners. Dragsten asked if these can be put anywhere else and meet the ordinance. O'Neill stated that they cannot under the PS zoning district. The PS District allows semi-public uses nearer to residential areas. Schumann clarified that the signs had already been put up as part of the temporary sign ordinance and are allowable at this time under that ordinance. O'Neill noted that this may set a precedent for other districts. The requested total sign area would be about 90 feet, more than what would be allowed in some commercial areas. In no commercial area do we allow more than one per property. Posusta stated that he would like to see this happen as the size of the property is a valid part of consideration. Dragsten stated that the question is not whether this request may seem appropriate in this circumstance, the concern is setting precedent. Spartz stated his concern is precedent setting for other churches on similarly larger parcels. Anderson stated that they would appreciate any consideration. The intent is to follow the temporary sign ordinance with the hope of an amendment. 9 O'Neill stated that the Commission could limit the number of signs to the number of right of way, or discuss minimum lot size. The Commissioners briefly discussed the merits and drawbacks of sign limitations based on lot size or frontage. Schibonski stated that he would be in favor of allowing a sign per frontage, but limit the size of each sign. Dragsten asked if he would be concerned about lot size. Schibonski referred to fairness to other churches. Dragsten suggested perhaps limiting signage to the number of access points. Spartz referred to the possibility of subsequent requests for variance for access points. O'Neill commented that if the Commission is going to make a determination based on exposure, they should consider frontage. Hilgart asked how the sign was measured. Anderson indicated that measuring the metal frame from the top to the "welcome" area, the sign is 36' in area. The face area of the banner is only 24'. Hilgart stated that he would agree with signage based on a public road right of way for a 10 acre site or larger. All the signs would need to meet setback. Schibonski stated that he would recommend a maximum of 2 signs, no matter what size of the site. 0 Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT, ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE TO THE PS ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW 2 SIGNS AT A MAXIMUM OF 75 SQUARE FEET EACH IN ADDITION TO EXISTING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Comprehensive Plan Update O'Neill stated that previously the Commission had considered an amendment that asked the Planning Commission to redesignate the YMCA area from a combination of open space and R-1 A to a park space designation. O'Neill explained that some months ago, the YMCA indicated an interest in selling the open space for development. They contacted City and County in this regard. In terms of the land use plan, the site was designated as open space, as it was presumed it would stay that way. The Council established a task force to look at the possibility of purchasing the property. The City and County have had good discussion with the YMCA. The YMCA did an appraisal. In the meantime, the task force has been authorized by the Council and 10 County to negotiate with the YMCA to purchase the site. Additionally, the City has increased its park dedication fee, which allows the City to pay for the cost of the property over time. O'Neill explained that having the site designated as park gives the City the rationale for increasing the fee. O'Neill summarized that staff is before the Planning Commission to determine to what extent they are supportive of this concept and in applying the additional fee. The City does have the authority to designate the land as parkland and to designate it as open space, if we have a vision for what it should be. There is a responsibility to pay for it at a fair price. O'Neill stated that it is a major goal of the Council to work toward finding a fair price so that the YMCA can feel good about the purchase. O'Neill stated that the intent is not to diminish the land value. The intent is to identify it as park land to start building the purchase fund. O'Neill noted that the YMCA did have representatives present at the meeting. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Brian Kirk addressed the Commission as a representative for the YMCA of Metro Minneapolis and Camp Manitou. Kirk stated that he is present to register the YCMA's concerns regarding recognizing the YMCA area as designated park, before the City and YCMA have an opportunity to negotiate a fair market value. Kirk stated that he understands that at some point it will need to be designated, but changing it at this time could have an adverse affect on the fair market value. If the City and County can't fund the whole parcel, that leaves the YMCA in position to need to change the designation. Kirk stated that the YMCA would request the Commission postpone action until the parties can negotiate. Kirk presented to the Commission a letter stating the YMCA's position from the Larkin Hoffman, attorneys, for the record. O'Neill stated that from a City standpoint, we are not obligated to ensure the highest value for a property owner's land. If it is decided that it should be parkland, the designation is needed within the comp plan. If the City leaves it open, you are letting the market plan for you. Designation of appropriate uses is an essential function of City planning. Posusta stated it isn't any different than other areas shown as guided. Someone might not want any kind of designation, if they don't feel it fits. Suchy stated that her position has grown stronger that the YMCA is an amenity that needs to be preserved for the community. The Commission needs to look out for the City's best interests. Spartz believes that the YMCA property is real estate and is subject to the markets isperception of location. He stated that any designation the City gives it will not change 11 • the value. Spartz stated that he thinks this would be a tremendous asset and would be an amenity for business and residential relocation, too. Hilgart inquired why it is guided as open space as it wasn't intended to be developed. O'Neill responded that it was presumed that the YMCA's commitment was to retain the property indefinitely. It was never designated specifically as park for that reason. Posusta commented that the comp plan is a guide that the City strives to meet. It isn't necessarily that it can never be changed. O'Neill stated that the designation does give the City the ability to charge the higher park dedication fee today. That is a primary reason for designating the area as park. Thompson explained that to designate the area as park land, it would need -a comp plan amendment, -which requires a supermajority vote of the City Council. O'Neill stated that Silver Springs is similar situation if Heritage's project is to move forward. Posusta stated that some parts of the YCMA land are not in the annexation area and that the township would have to agree to that. Posusta stated that they would only agree to that if 75% of this section is already developed. They would not hesitate to let it become part of the park system. Posusta noted that the County has stated that for their participation, they require a large area. Hilgart asked if Heritage would have to go first in order for the YMCA to be annexed. O'Neill stated that they are unrelated. O'Neill stated that to develop, the YMCA would need City approvals and require annexation. There is the ability for the City to withhold services. The City could say it is not going to serve the area with utilities. In response, the YMCA could sell it to an individual who will sit on it until the City position changes. O'Neill stated that we all have a vested interest in working together. Designating it as park land, affords the City the opportunity to build a fund for its purchase. Hilgart stated that he is trying to figure out if the land is really worth as much as they think it is. Developers are saying they can't afford development and land prices are going down. Hilgart suggested that perhaps the land isn't worth what people think it is. O'Neill explained that the task force will be spending 2-8 weeks working on establishing a fair price. We are looking at development ability, highland areas, shoreline regulations in relationship to what is a realistic number of buildings. The task force will use that to develop a value. Posusta stated that in reality there is about 700 acres of developable land. O'Neill stated that the Council has been visionary in saying that they think this will be park in the long run and authorizing staff to work with the YMCA. The comp plan policy would follow the momentum of the Council. 12 Hilgart stated that if the Commission does this, he doesn't want to say value should have to go down. Whether it is park or open space, it seems like the City has same control, but the designation is the key to funding the purchase. O'Neill stated that if the task force comes up with a number and the YMCA isn't interested, then the County and City can have a clear conscience in allowing development to occur. Hilgart commented that it should be noted that any development should be low density with R-1 A standards. Schibonski stated that the City should thank the YMCA for their- consideration for a City purchase. He indicated that his initial thought was that we should call for a moratorium to allow the comp plan update catch up. He stated that he thinks there is a good chance that it will become parkland, but the City can't be sure until we have comp plan process with whole City involved. A moratorium on development would give the City doesn't time to finish the comp plan. Dragsten asked Kirk for a timeframe on a sale. Kirk stated that it is the YMCA's intent to sell as soon as possible. However, the YCMA is willing to be patient and willing to negotiate with the City. Dragsten stated that his comment on this is that while it would make a great parkland area, he has a hard time with this when a property owner asks not to have it designated. This is especially true because we don't know that we can acquire it. Dragsten noted that we currently have no mechanism to purchase it. He stated that seems to step on the rights of the property owner. Dragsten stated that in his opinion, the Commission should table the decision, recommend the moratorium, or leave it as is. O'Neill stated that the City Council and County are very supportive of it being a park. In some respect, it is not in doubt, in their minds. The City has the authority to identify it as such. A moratorium does make sense if there is a debate going on. O'Neill stated that a moratorium is typically involved when there is more of a grey area. Schibonski stated that it seems that the funding is the concern. Posuta stated that the City addressed funding that when we raised park fees. Schibonski clarified that the Council did raise the fee. Posusta confirmed and stated that the number might be too low. Posusta stated that YMCA park development couldn't happen without the County's participation. It can't be developed in pieces. Dragsten stated that he doesn't know why the City can't enter into an agreement for first right of refusal. Dragsten stated that he doesn't have anything against the idea, but he doesn't feel it's right to designate it as a park, as it infringes on the YMCA's rights. Posusta stated that in that case, then perhaps we shouldn't even be doing a comp plan, because we might be stepping on people's toes. 13 SSuchy stated that our job is to protect the City and determine how to plan the City. Dragsten responded that the comp plan is a needed tool, but the City also needs to look at property rights. • O'Neill stated that the function of a planning effort is to determine appropriate land uses. Dragsten stated that the change to the comp plan seems more reactionary than visionary. Kirk stated that the development rights are what they are, the YMCA isn't asking the Commission to postpone the decision to drive up the value, we just want to get through negotiations. The concern is that once the land is designated as park, the City can sit on it, as long as they wish. Until we get to the point for a City purchase, the current designation allows the YMCA greater flexibility. Posusta asked if the designation truly matters. O'Neill stated that the City Council has to grapple with the issue. They need to substantiate the higher fee. Schibonski referred again to a moratorium. He stated that he doesn't know if the Commission has enough information to make a decision. In the meantime, developers are coming in, and the City could be losing the revenue stream. Schibonski asked if there is other land the City intends to purchase for park. O'Neill responded that there is not at this time. Posusta stated the decision is the City's on whether developers contribute land or money. He indicated that the City would choose money only based on the YCMA scenario. Hilgart asked how far apart the City and YMCA are in purchase price. O'Neill reported that the City appraisal has been ordered. Kirk stated that the YMCA has been open to land study and information on the property. O'Neill stated that our next step is for the City to finish the appraisal and then begin to negotiate price. Hilgart asked if the City does change the designation, is it feasible that the City would know if they are going to purchase the land or not. Spartz suggested that the designation be triggered by a purchase agreement. Hilgart stated that the City doesn't have anything to loose if it isn't redesignated now. Posusta stated that we have to be able to tell developers how much park dedication per unit. Hilgart stated that the City could change it right now, but if a purchase falls through, they'll have redesignated without justification for the increase. O'Neill stated that the designation could stay, the City would then need to negotiate with whomever buys it. O'Neill stated that the City doesn't have as much leverage to collect funds on something designated as open space. O'Neill stated that it is a bold step, but it could be the signature park that could drive many good things for the community. Planning is about having a vision for your town. 14 Schibonski referred again to the moratorium idea, suggesting an interim designation until comp plan is done, that way, the YMCA could see a definite end date for a decision. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI TO RECOMMEND CLASSIFICATION OF THE MONTICELLO YMCA AREA AS PARK AS AN INTERIM DESIGNATION, TO ALLOW FOR THE COLLECTION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES TO BE USED TOWARD PARK PURCHASE. THE RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO A FINAL DETERMINATION TO BE MADE AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AT THAT TIME. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT.- 9. Consideration to appoint two Commissioner to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPOINT COMMISSIONERS DRAGSTEN AND SUCHY TO THE TASK FORCE, WITH COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI SERVING AS AN ALTERNATE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0 10. Adjourn. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 15