Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-06-2006MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 6th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, , William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioner Absent: Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak, and Steve Grittman — NAC Guests: Mayor Clint Herbst, Former Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie 1. Call to order. 2. Recognition of the service of Former Planning Commission Chair Richard Frie. Mayor recognized Mr. Frie for ten years of service to the Commission, which he stated could be a thankless job, affecting countless numbers of people, and requiring decisions from large to small. Herbst stated that Planning Commission Chair is a difficult position, requiring knowledge of governing policies and ordinances. Herbst stated that Frie had done a wonderful job and presented him with a plaque recognizing his years of service. Frie stated that he accepted the plaque with appreciation, as the community of Monticello was good to himself and his family, and the Commission was a way to give back. Chairman Dragsten noted the number of cases and projects Chairman Frie had been involved with and noted that the Commission wanted to appropriately say goodbye. Dragsten presented Frie with a new birdhouse, noting that as Chairman, Frie had often commented that he "couldn't build a birdhouse", and followed that statement with an important question or comment on the case at hand. Chairman Dragsten concluded with another statement of appreciation to Frie for his leadership. Frie stated that what made the job a pleasure was the excellent individuals on. Frie also noted that he appreciated direction from staff and the liaisons. He stated that serving had been a privilege. 3. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning_ Commission meeting_ of Tuesday. Ap_ ril 181' and Tuesdav, Mav 2nd, 2006. Chairman Dragsten declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioners Hilgart and Schibonski. Schumann asked for clarification on who had volunteered to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Suchy indicated that she had volunteered to serve on the task force. Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 is Spartz noted that Commissioner Schibonski had asked for clarification on the motions. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Spartz added as item 11 the re -scheduling of July 4`h Commission meeting. Commissioner Suchy noted that business owners would be present to address temporary sign permits. Suchy requested that item to be heard prior to the PUD discussion. O'Neill requested as item 12 an update regarding comp plan. 5. Citizen comments. NONE. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of for an extension of an Interim Use Permit for the Alternative Learning Program, located in an I-1 (Light Industrial) District., Applicant: Monticello School District Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that the School District is seeking an extension of the existing Alternative Learning Center's interim use permit. The School District applied for the alternative education facility in 1997. At that time, the City amended the ordinance to allow these types of uses in industrial areas by interim use. The City approved the extension in three year increments. The most recent permit extension is up this summer and the School District is seeking an extension to continue use. Grittman stated that part of the reason the use was approved as interim is because eventually, the School District will find a more permanent home for the program. Grittman indicated that thus far, there have been no major problems with the school at this location. Staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit for another three year term. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Jim Johnson, Monticello School District Superintendent, addressed the Commission. Johnson stated that the District is trying to meet the needs of all students. The ALP model program has been recognized nationally and part of its success is due to its unique location. The ALP program doesn't fit in a normal school setting, and just the location can be a relief to students and provide an opportunity for students who struggle in a traditional school setting. Johnson reported that ALP had 144 graduates since 1997. He stated that these are students who may not have been able to earn their diploma without ALP. He noted that there were two staff members present who would be happy to answer questions. Posusta asked why the School District continues to rent the space in the industrial park, when there is a building sitting empty. Johnson stated that the district is in the process of looking at Eastview. In Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 looking at the next three years, he indicated that they may need to re -open the school. Additionally, the district doesn't want to have to find a new home for the ALP at this time. He noted that the combination of elementary and high school students in same building may not be the best alternative. He also indicated that as ALP's history in the current building is so successful, the district would hate to give that up. Posusta stated that knowing the district's financial troubles, it would make more sense to be in existing buildings. He said that it makes sense to put ALP at Eastview and then when it is reopened, look for a home somewhere else. Posusta asked for the rent number. Johnson stated that the rent for the ALP building is a lease levy item; it doesn't impact the general budget. Lynn Huldee, 15381 126`h Street SE, Becker, addressed the Commission, stating that she is part of original group of teachers who opened the ALP program. The program has been in business 9 years, graduated 144 students, and has seen many more. She reported that one of the issues with these students is that they have little success in a traditional school setting. Their job is reengaging students with learning. Students have made comments to the effect that this is the first time that they have felt like they have done a good job in school. She stated that she is proud of program, as it does superb work. She explained that it has been a hard year for ALP with the loss of Tom Keating. She stated that ALP is self-supporting and successful. Huldee indicated that she feels that part of that success is the location, which is private and free of the connotations of a regular school environment. Suchy asked how long the average student remains. Huldee responded that it is typically 2-3 years' students often come as sophomores. She noted that ALP also supports a sobriety program, which directly addresses chemical use, a key part of their work. Suchy asked if another location would be difficult for the students. Huldee answered that it would be, but also commented that Eastview is currently used for Early Childhood programs. She indicated that she isn't sure that is a good mixture. She said that she would prefer to have that separation, as mixing young adults with young children could pose problems. Dragsten stated that the key thing seems to be the location off -site, which is part of the success. Dragsten asked if the district is looking for alternate locations. Johnson responded that the Hoglund's have offered a reasonable rate for the building, and to date they have found nothing else that would be comparable in terms of size and location. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz commented that it seems that this location may be a better format for the ALP program. Dragsten asked if this extension would be for another 3 year term. Grittman confirmed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS, SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL INTERIM USE PERMIT, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CITY'S LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES OF ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, DUE TO THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE PERMIT, AND THE MINIMAL ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY. is MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use Permit for a Development StaLye Planned Unit Development for Elm Street Villas. a 114-unit residential plat in a PZM (Performance Zone -Mixed) District. Applicant: UP Development Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the proposed project is a mixed -use residential development within a PZM-zoned district, which allows for residential uses in a PUD design. This application is for preliminary plat and PUD. He reported that the total unit count is 113 units, spread over 20 acres. The plan was reviewed at concept level in a number of configurations. The City Council recently approved a concept stage PUD with single family, detached townhouses, and also some attached row house style units. The surrounding land uses include attached townhouses to the east, detached single family homes along 6h and potential residential to the south. There are a number of comments from the City Engineer related to design and technical details, which was included in the Commission's packet. Grittman stated that he would cover the most significant planning issues. Grittman reported that there are still some parking issues. One of the items staff is asking the applicant to change is the on -street parking bay. Staff doesn't believe that style of parking design is appropriate in residential areas. There is available on -street parking and other parking bays throughout the site. There is also the potential conflict caused by vehicles backing onto the public right of way. Staff s position is that there is a more than adequate supply of visitor parking on this site. This has more parking than most other townhouse projects. Grittman noted that there will be some management of on -street parking by signage related to overnight and plowing conditions. Each unit does, in fact, have both a two -car garage and a couple of spaces in the driveway. Grittman stated that the building design issues are the most apparent issue in this design. When this project was first considered, the applicant had focused on the detached townhomes, with fronts on the green space and alley -loading. This design flips the buildings so that the driveway runs out to the private access street. There is still front exposure to the green space. Staff s concern is related to the face of those buildings to the single family neighborhood. The applicant has provided images of those units. In other developments, the garage faces front an alley. In this case, they will be facing the single family units. The facade for the detached townhomes is not consistent with what we would encourage in residential areas. Staff would ask that the applicant redesign the detached townhome units to give them a more residential feel, and more emphasis on entrance views. Another comment relates to the single family home areas. Grittman suggested that these meet the R- 2A standard, which does not allow a garage forward design. The applicant has provided a sampling of designs, but has indicated that he will not be the builder. So these designs are concepts only. Staff recommends the R-2A to minimize the amount of garage forward design and increase the architectural aesthetics for the neighborhood. Grittman also noted areas where staff recommends moving units to provide more separation. He also commented on the amount of parking and building separation in relationship to open space. He stated that this proposal started out tight on open space, when a PUD designation should look to create more open space. As the project evolved, the open space has been consolidated and the ponding and parking areas have eroded the amount of green space. On west side of Elm, units were placed in the open space to gain additional parking. Additionally, by adding driveways and squeezing in units, the design has squeezed open space. For these reasons, Grittman indicated that staff have questioned whether the intent for PUD is being met. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 Grittman reported that other detailed comments were included in the report and that conditions listed in Exhibit Z would be the minimum requirements for any recommendation of approval from staff. Spartz asked about pedestrian connection conditions. Thompson stated the connection should be a sidewalk to ensure that users have a guide to the open space. Spartz asked if the standard depth of a driveway is 25' to the curb. Thompson answered that the depth is at 15' to property line. Spartz inquired about the meeting held with the applicant on May 30t'. O'Neill indicated that meeting is a review of the staff report and an overview of the conditions. Suchy asked if there are other sidewalks or pathways within the development. Grittman responded that there is a sidewalk on the internal side of the single family area, and on the extensions of 6 h and 6 %2 Street and on the west side of Elm Street. All main roads will have sidewalk. Dragsten asked about the proposed front yard setbacks in comparison to usable open space. He inquired if the setback is less because the units are larger. Grittman stated that the setback distance is part of the request for flexibility in design by PUD. Dragsten asked about the parking bay on 6 V2 Street in relationship to staff s comment on parking on the public street. Grittman responded that most people are not looking for these types of bays on public streets, and that removing it minimizes maintenance and safety concerns. Dragsten asked about no on -street parking on the private streets. Grittman answered that private streets are managed the same way as public streets in terms of signage. O'Neill asked the Commissioners if they had heard any complaints on the City's current ratio policy of 2 garage, 2 driveway, and 1 on street parking space for every three townhomes. Suchy stated that she hasn't heard anything. Suchy stated the proposed parking may be overkill in residential areas. 40 Dragsten stated that some projects aren't filled, so it may also be difficult to tell at this point. Dragsten stated that the Commission cannot clarify the final design style of units at this time. Grittman concurred. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Tom Rollings, applicant, 4550 Weston Lane North, Plymouth, made himself available for questions. Suchy stated that the Commission is starting to make a checklist for what makes a proposed PUD project superior. Suchy asked him to explain what he felt made his project superior. Rollings stated that this will be high -quality development with a large amount of open space. He explained that he had developed detached single family units in other areas, and staff have seen how those function. The detached and attached shown are real designs. Rollings stated that the amenities include a good landscaping plan around pond. He indicated that he did try to do less pavement, balancing the parking requirements. Rollings commented that if there are specific items the Commission is looking for, he can address those. Suchy referred to the design of the buildings. Rollings stated that they would be agreeable to design changes. They are concepts only. If the Commission or Council has a better idea for the fagade, he is open to that. Suchy stated that she would like to add under conditions item 3, that the builder be required to meet R-2A standards for the single family product. Dragsten asked if Rollings had read the R-2A standards. Rollings indicated that is familiar with them. Suchy stated that perhaps not repeating a certain house style within a certain number of units may be something to look at. Rollings indicated that would be their own requirement, as well. He stated that they typically have 7 house styles among 16 units, so style is not to be repeated within every 4. Suchy also sought to remove the extra parking bays. Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 Spartz asked if Rollings was familiar with Exhibit Z and whether he had issues with those items. Rollings indicated that having specific drawings is an issue at this point. He inquired whether perhaps the Commission would be agreeable to having final designs subject to an architectural review committee. That way, he could ensure that with any builder, he could protect the City as far as control. Rollings stated that he can't support a higher design if he doesn't know what is going to be there. Spartz commented that the design is an issue in a PUD consideration. O'Neill stated that the City needs a standard to set the bar at in order to review this projects. It sounds as if the R-2A would be applicable for single family. O'Neill stated that typically the PUD is reviewed as a package. The development agreement is signed with designs incorporated as part of the approval. The time involved in reviewing each application would be significant if an architectural review committee was needed for each. He commented that if the Commission and Council want us to be involved, but staff may need some kind of security in terms of what the City is looking for. Grittman stated that normally, we would have a palette of pre -approved standards or buildings. Then the building department would know what was approved. Normally, staff are uncomfortable taking that authority on our own. At the very least, if you were to pass this on, we would want to revisit the architecture formally once the builder is selected. Dragsten asked if the Commission could move the plan forward, then final the architecture in phases. Grittman stated that it can be done that way, although the ordinance isn't set that way. Dragsten stated that it could be done with each final plat. Rollings asked if he could improve the site under that scenario. Grittman stated that they could, subject to authorization, but at their own risk. Spartz noted the City's engineers had questions on storm water. Marty Campion, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had asked questions specifically about storm water prior to submission. The information submitted was what was discussed. So, we were surprised when we saw the report. However, he stated that he doesn't think there are things that are insurmountable. Spartz clarified that Mr. Elkin of WSB had provided Campion with the needed information. Grittman noted for the record that Phil Elkin is WSB's storm water reviewer. Grittman stated that respecting Campion's opinion, Elkin would probably disagree that all information had been provided as directed. Campion stated that they will submit that information prior to Council consideration. Dragsten asked about the setback variances from ordinance. He inquired if those were proposed because the applicant thinks this is a superior project. Rollings stated that the PUD design gives them greater amount of common space, which they find to be a more superior design. The single family units also have a smaller sideyard to accommodate a better design in the buildings. Dragsten asked where the open space is proposed. Rollings illustrated the open space areas shown on the plan. Campion stated that the opens space is about 2 %2 times what is required by ordinance for a development of this size. It does not include the ponding areas. Dragsten asked for the square foot sizes of the homes. Campion responded that the west side townhomes would be 25' x 50', the detached single family would be about 22' x 54'. The footprint for attached on the east side is 32' x 34'. Rollings stated that the detached units are close to 1375- 1500 square feet, including both stories. The eastside townhomes are 1500-1600 and the west side townhomes would be 1370-1490 square feet. The single family would be set at the R-2A standard. no Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 Drasgten asked how large the garages would be. Rollings stated that they would be two stall. Dragsten noted that the code minimum is 450 square feet. Rollings stated that they are 480 or better; they are probably at 510-515 square feet. Dragsten asked if there was an environmental assessment for this property. Rollings stated that Phase 1-3 had been completed on the east side. A Phase 1 was done of the west side, and he also ordered additional testing. He will be providing the results of those tests to the City as required by the conditions. Dragsten asked about the existing home on site. Rollings stated that the house in the ghost platted area will stay until they want to move. Dragsten commented that one of the Exhibit Z conditions requires that the homeowner's association documents should be reviewed by staff. Rollings noted that comment. Suchy stated that if the Commission recommends approval, she would want them to come back to the Commission for final home designs. Not having your actual building plans ahead of time does raise concerns. Rollings stated that even if he had the final plans, a builder could still request changes. Rollings stated that he will most likely sell to one builder to create a more efficient deal. Dragsten stated that his concern is that the City gets the product it thought it would get. Rollings stated that his suggestion for the architectural review was to still allow the approval, while allowing for the final design to come later. Dragsten added Schibonski's comments for the record. Schibonski had indicated that he thought the single family area should contain no splits. He also noted the drainage issues identified by the engineers. Schibonski commented that he felt there wasn't enough parking because people would fill up driveways without an ability to put up accessory structure. Rollings responded that this development concept does work - even with no driveways in other areas where he has developed a similar product, it works because of the market and lifestyle. The association also offers that assurance. Dragsten commented that he believed the plan had more than enough parking. Dragsten stated that in looking at the single family area, his concern is that the lots are too narrow, and trying to get the proper R-2A home on site could be an issue. O'Neill referred to Carlisle Village, stating that even with narrower lots, the R-2A there are nice. If the Commission is willing to hold firm to the home design standard, it can get the product it's looking for. Dragsten stated that Commission would like more concrete designs, and noted that with an approval, the developer would be doing infrastructure at its own risk. Dragsten asked the other Commissioners their opinion on design. Spartz noted that in Carlisle, the side setback is close, but the design of the homes is a superior product. O'Neill commented that the key to R-2A is limiting the garage forward design and looking for architectural detail. Suchy stated that she would like to review the house plans once the builder has been identified. She inquired if tabling a decision for another month would give the applicant enough time to secure builders. Rollings responded that tabling would be the last thing he would ask for, as he needs to set a timeframe for the infrastructure. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that his preference would be to table, although the builder may not be here in a month, or two months. He stated that he doesn't feel positive about the project without seeing the end result on building design. He also noted concern about drainage issues and the length of the Exhibit Z items. i Dragsten stated that with an approval, it does give the applicant the opportunity to go to builders, so 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 that builders can provide fmal design. Essentially, he can't sell anything to builders until the plan is design is finalized. Spartz stated that he isn't comfortable moving forward at this time. He commented that he would like to see it tabled based on submission of concrete visual design for the sites and addressing of the drainage issues and Exhibit Z items. Suchy stated that she would also like the applicant to define the architectural minimums they would plan to meet. Dragsten stated that would be done when a builder is found. Dragsten noted potential changes between the developer and then the builder. O'Neill stated that in moving forward, the Commission could identify standards for detached and attached units. Grittman stated that the problem may be that the Commission has no visual to refer to. Dragsten sited again the applicant's ability to present a plan to the builders. Suchy stated that they could come back to the Commission for final approval. Dragsten concurred. Grittman stated that in that case, the Commission would be approving part of the PUD, but withholding architectural approval. Rollings referred to O'Neill's comment on additional review, stating that he is more than happy to accommodate that expense to take that extra step in bringing it back. Spartz asked about Condition number 5 requiring the removal of a unit. Rollings stated that he would consider that. Spartz noted that it would mean the removal of the building to create more separation. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, 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, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 15, WHICH STATES THAT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL ALL HOME DESIGN STYLES ARE GIVEN FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. O'Neill asked whether condition number 6, would stay. Dragsten clarified that nothing has been removed from Exhibit Z, but that condition number 3 does include the R-2A standards. 8. Consideration to adopt a resolution findine that a modification to the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-2 (Metcalf/Larson) and 1-24 (St. Bens) conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the citv. Applicant: Monticello HRA Koropchak presented the staff report, stating that the HRA has the authority to establish TIF districts. The Commission is asked to adopt a resolution fmding that the modification of two TIF districts find is in conformance with comp plan and redevelopment efforts. The modification is allowing an increase in budgets amounts, which allows the HRA use to use the funds for redevelopment efforts. The HRA can only use the dollars for redevelopment purposes within the district. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 The HRA is preserving the right to use the money, but not authorizing any expenditures at this time. If the HRA doesn't modify the districts, the excess increment has to be turned back to Wright County. The HRA is going to hold a workshop to set priorities for expenditures. Dragsten asked about TIF funding uses. Koropchak stated that one type of district is used for affordable housing. The other type is for redevelopment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDNG THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLANS FOR TIF DISTRICTS NO. 1-2 AND 1-24 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMETN AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 9. Consideration of an update re2ardina centralized message board siLynage. Suchy indicated that as she was completing research for the message boards, some business owners had expressed frustration with the temporary sign ordinance. Suchy stated that the message board could be away to centralize signage. She reported that she had met with Kitty Baltos, Community Center Director on the signage issue. Baltos went back to her board, who did not want the Community Center on a joint sign to advertise with the Liquor Store. One solution was to work with the Chamber Board to put message board where the current kiosk sign is. Suchy commented that she had looked at the City of Albertville's message sign. Albertville was responding to businesses downtown. The sign served as a community sign and served businesses that didn't feel they were getting exposure. Suchy stated that the discussion is preliminary at this point. In talking with businesses, Suchy stated that she isn't sure if what the City wants to accomplish is the same as their goal. She reported that the business owners do not feel the current 40 days of temporary signage is enough. They are saying that is very limiting. Other businesses are saying that there is preferential treatment. Suchy stated that she wants Commission and Council to hear the businesses and why they feel the ordinance isn't working, then determine where to go from here. O'Neill thanked Suchy for all of her work in site visits and in identifying the issues and talking with people. O'Neill stated that it is a complicated issue. Monticello has a great corridor of traffic with opportunities for exposure. Although we would like to see them take advantage of the exposure, we need to determine how to provide it in a fair way. O'Neill indicated that the temporary sign ordinance was created from convenience stores that want to put up plastic signs. It was meant to be for special events. It wasn't meant to be permanent signage. O'Neill noted that as we go forward, we have seen that a conversion of the sign system to more signs that are larger. We are also creating more permanent signs. O'Neill commented that consolidation might make sense. Suchy asked Lynn Dahl -Fleming to speak on behalf of the non-profit organizations in Monticello. Suchy stated that in her research, most cities do not regulate non -profits. She reported that Elk River allows non -profits to place a sign on City property for 90 calendar days. O'Neill commented that part of the question is how to implement change. In terms of a task force to look at the issue, it works best to keep the group small and make certain task force members have the Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 dedication to act quickly. He suggested no more than 5 members, representing a good cross-section of interests in the matter. Lynn Dahl -Fleming spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Arts Council, as business owner at 113 Locust Street, Chamber member, and as Art in the Park Coordinator. She noted that in March she was told that the City was looking at reviewing the ordinance. She stated that in talking with City Hall regarding Arts Council event signage, she would need to get permission from Maus Foods to use a portion of their 40 days. As a business owner, she indicated that it was unfortunate that they had to give up those days. Dahl -Fleming stated that a community reader board will help alleviate the need, and because of the traffic, there are locations that are more well suited to signage. Dahl -Fleming asked that the Planning Commission consider allowing non -profits the same amount of days as businesses; that non -profits still need to get permission from the business to use their site, but that they would have their own allotment of days. Dahl -Fleming stated that she recognizes that the Commission is trying to good for the community as a whole on this issue. Grittman stated that the City obviously wants to work with all of its businesses. However, we are restricted by court interpretation in terms of sign content. When the City issues permits by property, it cannot tell them what they can or cannot have on the sign in terms of a message. If they have a non- profit message, that is content. Grittman stated that the test is, that if staff has to read the sign for the message, the City has regulated content. Legally, the City does not have that option. O'Neill stated that the alternative is to add to the number of days. Then the issues is that the City can't guarantee they would be used for the non -profits. Lynn Dahl -Fleming commented that Big Lake does offer time separately to non -profits. Grittman stated that there are other cities that do, but if they were challenged, they would not prevail. Suchy inquired if it would be acceptable if they went to Council rather than staff. Grittman stated that it is the same problem. They are making an illegal distinction by message. Although other cities may do it, it is illegal, and he stated that he would not advise Monticello to do it. Dragsten asked how many days were being used. Anderson stated that on the enforcement end, 20-30 per business per year. In a typical year, about 1200 days are used. Spartz asked why the ordinance was set at 40 days. Anderson stated that it was originally 10. With the proliferation of signs at convenience stores, the ordinance was adjusted. Anderson referenced message boards as a good alternative. Dragsten asked if it is primarily non -profits using the signs. Anderson responded that it varies. He noted that sign the rental cost is the same for 1 day as lmonth, so businesses are using more time. Holli Schillewaert, owner of Dragonfly, stated that in the last month, she has seen an increase in business from those who would never have known about Dragonfly without temporary signage. O'Neill noted that while staff recognize that temporary or off -site signage can be valuable, if allowed without restriction, the proliferation would be incredible. Dragsten asked if there is core group currently meeting with Suchy. Schillewaert volunteered to be the representative for downtown. O'Neill also suggested a Chamber representative, Planning Commission, City Councilor, and business member. He stated that the group doesn't necessarily need non-profit because many of the representatives would already be a part of non-profit groups. Drasgten stated that the task force should look at both message board and temporary signage. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 10. Consideration to review for discussion the standards for Planned Unit Developments. O'Neill recounted that at the last meeting, the Commission had reviewed the different PUDs, and recommended that staff begin working on an outline of information relative to PUD amendment structure. He reported that the information isn't available at this point, but if the Commission would like to give staff further input, it would be helpful in creating the structure. Dragsten stated that he had trouble connecting comments with each development name in the notes. He noted that Cottage Charm, Spirit Hills and Hillside Farm were done well. Grittman asked him to identify what it was specifically about those developments that made them superior. Dragsten responded that he liked that use of color, the quality of materials, the attention to detail on the exterior, landscaping, and the imagination in utilizing existing site. Suchy stated that in addition to the architectural minimums, she would like to encourage custom grading of lots to work with the land, and focus on clusters to preserve natural features. Suchy stated that she does not support averaging of density. She commented that averaging within only the buildable area may be a solution. Suchy commented that in going back to architectural detail, she doesn't think that the City needs to be so concerned about size of the home as with the details, architectural entranceways, lighting, streetscape, etc. Spartz stated that sometimes it is easier to point to things you don't like. In terms of things he did like, Spartz mentioned the use of columns and fagade detailing in stone and brick, and the quality of materials at Carlisle and Spirit Hills. Grittman stated that we can take this information, along with the previous review notes and formulate isome conceptual ideas in the development PUD information packet. Then, staff will bring it back for discussion. 11. Comprehensive Plan Update O'Neill explained that staff had met with HKGi, the comprehensive plan consultants, and had set a preliminary schedule for community input. The community kick-off meeting has been set for July 26t', with neighborhood meetings to follow. 12. July Meeting Schedule O'Neill reported that there are no formal applications for July, with no public hearings driving the need for a meeting. Some housekeeping items the Commission may wish to address include updating the R-2A code to require associations, revisiting the PUD discussion, requiring a 30' setback on sideyard facing public streets, updating the Commission on signage efforts, and updating CUPS to run with land and not with property owner. If Commission prefers, it could look forward to comp plan participation in July rather than a meeting. Spartz suggested meeting on July 18''. The Commissioners agreed to cancel the first regular July meeting and hold only the bi-monthly meeting on Tuesday, July 18th. 13. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/06/06 • • • 12