Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-01-2006• • • Commissioners: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison: Staff 1. Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 1st, 2006 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Craig Schibonksi Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak, Bruce Westby, Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, declaring a quorum of the Commission. Dragsten noted the absence of Commissioner Schibonski and that Council Liaison Posusta would be late. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 6 h, 2006. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 6th, 2006. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development to accommodate a drive -through facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Mielke Bros., LLC Grittman presented the staff report, noting the project's location at the intersections of Cedar and Highway 25. Grittman stated that the drive through addition would be an amendment to the current conditional use permit in place for planned unit development. The drive through is proposed to be located along Cedar Street. The shopping center for which the drive through is requested is currently under construction. Grittman explained that the applicant has made enhancements to the Cedar Street side of the building. In this request, they would convert the access -street side from green space to drive -through. Grittman stated that the City had accepted the application with the condition that the applicant provide civil drawings, which were received after the public hearing publication deadlines. As such, it was not noticed until after publication deadline that the drive through was within the easement lines, which requires a variance. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/06 Grittman indicated that this hearing is only for the amendment. He reported that staff have a number of concerns regarding the drive -through proposal. The location and length of stacking space are the primary concerns. Based on the dimensions of the drawing provided, there are only about 3 %z car stacking spaces. The fourth car would be extending into the Cedar Street traveled right of way. As the applicants have not indicated the user, and as the City doesn't control the user, the City usually looks for a minimum of six spaces. There are some cases where the City has less, but in those cases, stacking traffic is internal to the site. In this situation, stacking onto the public right of way is more likely to present safety concerns. Grittman stated that there are also a number of potential issues with design. The corner of the building is within 12' of the right of way line and the sidewalk proposed for Cedar. As such, accommodating a drive -through would put the back of curb very near the sidewalk. The purpose of driveway areas being off easements areas is for snow storage, safety and green space. This proposed design eliminates the green space that had been present in the area. Grittman reported that the applicants have indicated a willingness to move the sidewalk, if necessary. There are also other concerns about exiting traffic from the drive -through. Traffic exits without good visibility and in the midst of a major driveway access. The City Engineer had indicated some concern regarding the turning radius at this point. As a result of both planning and engineering staff s concerns, Grittman stated that staff are not recommending approval of the amendment to CUP as proposed. Conditions of approval have been provided, if the Commission is inclined to recommend approval. Suchy asked about approving the Dairy Queen drive -through in that area, which also seems to present many of the same issues. Grittman responded that the Dairy Queen did receive a variance. Suchy asked if most of the green space would be eliminated. Grittman answered that it would be. Spartz asked about definition of a "low volume" drive through. Grittman responded that fast food drive throughs are more high intensity; the nature of this development wouldn't allow for that. Low volume drive throughs would probably be pharmacies. We are assuming this is not a pharmacy based on square footage. Spartz asked if the access to Cedar would remain. Grittman stated that the curb cut will be there and act primarily as a service access. Dragsten asked for the dimension of the drive -through area in relationship to access. Grittman displayed the site plan, stating that refuse haulers would have to pull in and back out, as there would be no additional access around the building. O'Neill asked about retro-fitting drive-throughs in other areas that had the potential to stack in the street. Grittman stated that in those circumstances, people wait in the public right of way. O'Neill asked about a safety measure that could be installed to prevent conflict between pedestrians and exiting traffic. Grittman stated that building mirrors can be helpful. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dan and Lee Mielke, applicants, addressed the Commission. Dan Mielke asked the Commission for approval of the proposed drive -through and stated that he intended to address staff s concerns. Mielke discussed items that he felt made the project superior; stating that the storefront look was carried around the building, and noting the other landscaping elements and that the site was overparked by 8-9 vehicles. Mielke stated that the site would have good ingress and egress and that a low volume user was proposed for the space. Mielke stated that a business wouldn't want 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 to locate in the drive -through space if they didn't think the stacking could work. Mielke noted that there is nothing in the code that prescribes stacking. Mielke displayed the site plan for the originally approved Travel Center PUD, stating that access was approved and designed for a gas station in this area. As such, he stated that this access will certainly handle a low volume user. In terms of stacking space, Mielke indicated that the drive - through aisle is 95' long, which when divided by 22' for a car length, is 4.3 cars. He indicated that there is actually 116' to the corner, which would allow 5.2 spaces at 22 feet. Mielke noted that he thinks the drive thru will easily handle 5, probably 6 cars before it reaches the street. Mielke reported that they would be happy to move the sidewalk to accommodate the drive - through, although it is only 1 foot off the curb line and is so only at one point. Mielke indicated that the original approval of PUD occurred when parking could be put within 5 feet of the property line. He noted the 15' easement the City took on a separate portion of the project. Mielke went on to review other drive -through arrangements throughout the community, including Snyder's and the recently approved Taco John's. Dragsten asked Mr. Mielke to conclude as he would like to take comments from the public, commissioners and staff. Mielke responded that he had other comments about easements around buildings. Mielke stated that he believed the new drainage and utility ordinance inhibited property owner's full use of property. Mielke asked about the reasoning behind the easement ordinance. O'Neill replied that often, these areas are used for utilities, and when the City has to complete work on these utilities, there is often disagreement on who is liable for costs. Mielke stated that he would be willing to sign a waiver over the easement to place utilities in there. He noted again that he thinks the ordinance is a restriction that should be reconsidered. Mielke reiterated other points on signage and lighting on the site. In regards to the City Engineer's comments, which discuss a pinch point in the drive -through, Mielke stated that the drive -through is 11', with a bollard at the corner. He indicated that he could cite all kinds of examples where this width occurs in the City. Dragsten indicated that Mr. Mielke had proven that in that past, the City has tried to work with businesses. Dragsten requested that the Commission be allowed to move ahead to get their questions answered. Mielke deferred, citing the City library drive through width at 9' 8" and having significant safety issues. He also addressed the engineer's storm sewer comments, noting that Meyer Rohlin, their engineer, stated that any additional water will flow into the storm sewer. Mielke went through Exhibit Z conditions, noting that they are not seeking an order board, and that he had addressed stacking and landscaping already. He stated that they are happy to comply with the engineer's other recommendations as long as they are in compliance with codes. O'Neill questioned the nature of the business intended and the process of using the drive thru. Mielke stated that the reason the drive through wasn't requested originally is that it would have been added into a larger space. O'Neill asked if users order from home. Mielke answered that is the case with this prospective tenant. That is why there is no order board. Such asked if there an chance that a tenant could expand into the next bay and create a more Y Y p Y intense use. Mielke stated the next bay is already leased; although it could happen in the future. 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 Suchy stated that she does appreciate Mielke's feedback, it does give a different perspective. She indicated that she does believe it will be an upscale development. Spartz asked if the original PUD relied on shared parking. Mielke confirmed. Spartz noted this PUD seems to have been piecemealed together. It seems that when putting the layout of the building and site up, the developer need to work within the codes in deciding on the property lines. Spartz asked how Mielke may have accommodated that drive -through differently if planned from the beginning. Mielke replied that he would still have same stacking issue. Hilgart asked what O'Neill and Grittman think about the other plans presented by Mielke; how does this proposal relate to others approved? Grittman stated that staff stand by their comments, based on their experience in this community and others. Grittman indicated that he thinks the only place the City has allowed encroachment into the 12' easement areas was Taco John's, and that was to align the exit lane which was a fixed point. Beyond that, in terms of the length of the drive-throughs, the City has consistently looked at those to make sure that overflow stacking has occurred in private parking areas. O'Neill also noted that prior to the drainage and utility easement setback, there was a five foot setback. This proposal would still have needed a variance under those standards. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. O'Neill asked if the business could limit the orders taken. Mielke stated he had asked the prospective tenant about ordering at the window; economics will control the situation. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD TO CONSTRUCT ADRIVE-THRU LANE IN THE MIELKE/LOCH DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT: (a) The proposed use is not consistent with the requirements of the B-3, Highway Business, District, (b) The use of the drive -through as designed with just 3 full off-street stacking spaces will result in congestion and public safety problems in the adjoining public street, (c) The proposed drive -through violates the required setbacks for such facilities in the B-3 District, (d) The proposed drive -through would endanger pedestrian traffic on the adjacent sidewalk, and (e) The exit lane does not permit traffic to exit the drive -through without conflicting with incoming traffic to the shopping center, creating additional street safety problems. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1., WITH COMMSISIONER SUCHY IN DISSENT. Grittman noted that the variance request will be heard separately at an upcoming meeting.. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Variance to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance section 3-9(E) regulating the height and area of Dvlon sianage for a hotel DroDertv in a B-3 (Highway Business) district. ADDlicant: Best Western/Scenic Sign 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 40 Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the applicants are seeking a variance for height and area for a sign. Grittman explained that the sign ordinance for pylons is based on frontage road speed. The proposed sign is 173 square feet, the code allows for 100. Grittman summarized the hardship findings that need to be made. In this particular case, the applicant's property had extended into the freeway bonus area, allowing for additional height and area. However, the applicants sold that property, and the property left no longer qualifies. One of findings of a variance requires that the hardship condition is not created by the applicant, In this case, it clearly was. As a result, Grittman stated that staff does not recommend the variance. If the City believes sign is appropriate, the more appropriate avenue would be amending the ordinance. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if the applicant had already purchased the sign. O'Neill noted that it was purchased under the idea it would be placed at a different location, within the freeway bonus area. If the Commission thinks it would fit, an ordinance amendment would be more appropriate. Dragsten commented that there doesn't seem to be grounds for a variance, and granting one would set a precedent. He did note that it is understandable that the business needs something on Oakwood and that the drop in allowable area and height from the freeway bonus area is substantial. Suchy stated that she believes that Monticello is a freeway City, and as a traveler she looks for these signs. If we want to invite people in, she stated that she thinks that the ordinance should fit that goal. She indicated that the sign doesn't seem inappropriate for the area. Dragster noted that it is not a pylon. He commented that when driving, he Looks for the blue directional signs, noting that this sign is out of freeway range and view. The question becomes where the freeway bonus area ends. Spartz stated that he understands the difficulty for the applicant. Sign would accentuate their business. However, the Commission has dealt with this issue before, in that by giving a variance to one, then it becomes an issue of giving one to the next. Grittman stated that the City could create an overlay district to allow different types of signs in different areas. Grittman stated that restricting by business type regulates content, which is illegal. Posusta agreed with Grittman, stating that the City should revisit the freeway bonus area. He indicated that he thinks it important in this situation that the applicant be able to put this sign up, due to extenuating circumstances. Dragsten stated that he likes the sign, but reiterated that granting a variance sets a precedent; he would rather change the ordinance. Spartz asked if the Commission could table for the amendment process. Dragsten stated the amendment would take at least two months. O'Neill noted that an approval had already been given by Council for a portable sign. The Commission discussed a companion motion on the amendment. Posusta stated that time is of the essence on this request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, • BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP IS PROVEN AND THE FOLLOWING: A. The property does not exhibit any unique conditions that interfere with reasonable use. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 B. Moreover, while the property previously qualified for a freeway bonus, the applicants sold the property that provided for the bonus. Thus, the change in property status was due to the applicants' own action. As such, there do not appear to be any qualifications under the City's zoning ordinance or variance process that would support the variance request. C. The variance request sets a precedent for sign size in direct violation of the City's ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THE FREEWAY BONUS AREA AND A POSSIBLE OVERAY DISTRICT. Grittman asked for the amendment to presented for the September meeting. COMMISSION SUCHY AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE A PROVISION CALLING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5 h. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, 4- 0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit for cross parkine and cross access and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive -through facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Steiner Development, Inc. Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is proposing a 22,070 square foot commercial shopping center with multiple tenants to be located in the southeast portion of the site. The remainder of the site will be utilized for parking. A future commercial site is planned for the northwest corner of the site. This site will be subdivided at the time of development and processed as a separate application. Grittman noted that the applicants indicated that a potential restaurant tenant may also occupy the northernmost unit within the strip center. Usually restaurants have their peaks at same time of the day. A restaurant tenant of the same size as the coffee shop would increase the total number of required spaces for the site by as many at 25 additional spaces. Staff does not support addressing the deficiency in parking by a joint parking arrangement without knowing the exact tenants for the site. Staff would also recommend limiting the number of restaurant uses on the site to one (not including the proposed future commercial pad). Any additional restaurant uses would require utilizing the future commercial site for parking. At this time, staff have applied the parking code as prescribed. A second restaurant use would create a parking deficiency. Based on the calculations above, the site meets the required parking, without cross easements, for the strip center area, based on the inclusion of one restaurant. At the time that the applicant has identified a tenant for the individual commercial pad, Grittman indicated that it will be appropriate to consider conditional use permit for cross parking between the strip center and the pad site, should additional parking beyond the required amount be needed. The CUP for cross access between commercial parking lots would be appropriate for this use, mizing the need for vehicles to use the public street when circulating between commercial properties. Grittman reported that he applicant is proposing a "low -volume" drive through in the northeast corner of the site. As proposed, the drive -through would provide stacking space for four cars. Any excess vehicles would spillover into the parking lot, and block access to parking stalls. This Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/06 would potentially create parking and traffic congestion problems. Therefore, additional stacking space is necessary. Staff recommends that a minimum of 40 additional feet of stacking space be provided to accommodate six vehicles, as measured from the pick-up window. The additional space necessary to extend the drive lane may require removal of three parking stalls to the west of the entrance. Removal of those three stalls would still allow the applicant to meet parking requirements, based on one restaurant tenant. Grittman stated that staff are recommending approval for the conditional use permit for joint access and drive -through, with the conditions as outlined in Exhibit Z. At the time that users are identified for both the pad retail and possible second restaurant tenant, it will be appropriate to evaluate the joint parking CUP. Spartz stated that he noticed that when customers access the order board, traffic is coming from the opposite direction, so there are three different movements in a short area. Grittman stated that is a common problem with most drive throughs. Grittman stated that the access lanes are all open driveway, and users should have adequate time to match up with traffic flow. Hilgart inquired if they remove those parking spaces, will they still meet requirement. Grittman confirmed that they have three excess spaces. Hilgart asked about the need for a joint access CUP, Grittman stated that it is conceiveable that traffic will move between 4'Ryans and this site. Hilgart asked about joint parking. Grittman stated that CUP would come with 2nd restaurant in the first phase building and pad site. Hilgart asked if the applicant will have to come back for that CUP. Grittman stated that Commission could table until they have a more defined tenant mix, rather than deny the CUP. Dragsten clarified the joint parking is not between this site and other lots. Guttman state d that it is contained to this site; between the retail mix building and the pad site. Hilgart asked if the Commission didn't agree that the joint parking arrangement was sufficient, would the corner tenant need additional spaces. Grittman stated that if you want more restaurants, they would need to encroach into the pad space with more parking. Suchy asked if parking would be allowed on Hart Bouelvard. Grittman stated that he doesn't believe there is a no parking condition, but the City does need to be careful about parking on Hart. Dragsten asked about the proposed bike path. Westby confirmed that the City will be building that portion of the bike path. Dragsten noted that the City will build the main trail connection along County 39, to which the developer will connect with sidewalks. Suchy asked if it would make more sense to make it one way behind the building, rather than trucks only. Grittman stated that had been discussed, but the parking spaces will be used for employees only. The intent is to discourage as much commercial traffic as possible. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Lisa Diehl, addressed the Commission representing Steiner Development as applicants. She introduced Neil Weber, project architect, and Todd Johnson, VP of Development for Steiner Development. Dragsten commented that color elevations hadn't been presented. Dragsten asked if the building would have awnings. Weber stated that the awnings will depend on the tenant mix in terms of 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 length. The building materials will be concrete brick, with EIFS surface. There will be a wrapped front treatment around corners. The back of the building will be rock -face block in a complimentary color. Dragsten inquired if the building varies in terms of wall depth. Weber stated that the building is raised at either end, as will the middle section on inside corner. Dragsten sought clarification on building dimensional relief. Weber stated that there would be approximately 120 feet of straight surface. Dragsten asked if Steiner was considering patio areas on both ends. Diehl stated that at this time, only at the drive through end. Johnson stated that he had spoken with staff, who were agreeable to amending Exhibit Z to provide for fencing at the time patios went in for either end. Dragsten asked if the applicants had reviewed Exhibit Z. Johnson responded that they had reviewed the conditions. First, addressing the issue of parking, Johnson stated that staff has recommended and is agreeable to giving approval for cross parking for the building as proposed. If Steiner were to come in with something that is not retail, he understands that they would need to come back. Johnson stated that the outlot is a question mark in terms of type of retail business. Johnson indicated that Steiner understands that there is a process for the joint parking agreement and they will follow it at that time. In regard to the comment on parking on Hart Boulevard, Diehl stated that they would welcome no parking there. Johnson reported that they are in agreement with all conditions, with the one change that fencing be installed at time patios are installed. Suchy asked about the drive through reconfiguration. Johnson stated that they accept the condition. Johnson stated that they had a conversation with the prospective tenant who is prepared to come back and accommodate additional stacking. Dragsten asked about joint parking. Johnson stated that they way it is being suggested, Steiner's parking is approved for one restaurant. A second restaurant use would require more parking. It may be that if a second restaurant is proposed, they would be able to manage the parking to demonstrate they can accommodate need. Grittman explained that the way the requirements work, parking is determined based upon tenants. Grittman stated that in terms of the joint parking CUP, the Commission can either deny or table approval until the time they need to consider it. Johnson stated that creates a hardship for Steiner in trying to get full utilization of the property. Johnson stated that they need to have ability to lease the building. Grittman stated that the Commission could approve joint parking as described and if Steiner has an additional restaurant, they will need to re -analyze the joint parking. Joint parking isn't necessary at this point. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE APPROVAL ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT PARKING UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT NEED IS DEMONSTRATED. Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit a Joint Parking Arrangement, based on a finding that the proposed arrangement would meet the requirements for off-street parking, subject to the Conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/06 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a joint parking arrangement for Broadway Market. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT ACCESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The site plan shall be revised to create at least 40 feet of additional stacking space behind the order board. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 7 additional overstory trees along CSAH 39 and Hart Boulevard. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised to identify "SKH," as indicated on the plant schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide details on height and face area of all proposed signage. The sign plan shall conform to ordinance standards. 5. The applicant shall provide colored building elevations, including dimensions of the building, including the front fagade. 6. The entrance to the east driveway shall be signed "trucks only. S7. The sign adjacent to the future commercial site shall be reviewed as part of any application for the future site. The future development should be surrounded by bituminous curbing to establish an edge to the circulation and drainage of the main parking area. 8. Both patios shall be surrounded with fencing and moveable planters. 9. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the City Engineer. Schumann inquired if Hilgart intended that his motion include that for Condition 8 that fencing and planters would be required at that time that patios are installed. Hilgart concurred. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY AS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED, 4- 0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. 1. The site plan shall be revised to create at least 40 feet of additional stacking space behind the order board. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 7 additional overstory trees along CSAH 39 and Hart Boulevard. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised to identify "SKH," as indicated on the plant schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide details on height and face area of all proposed signage. The sign plan shall conform to ordinance standards. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01 /06 0 5. The applicant shall provide colored building elevations, including dimensions of the building, including the front facade. 6. The entrance to the east driveway shall be signed "trucks only." 7. The sign adjacent to the future commercial site shall be reviewed as part of any application for the future site. The future development should be surrounded by bituminous curbing to establish an edge to the circulation and drainage of the main parking area. 8. Both patios shall be surrounded with fencing and moveable planters. 9. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the City Engineer. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Consideration to review for comment a sketch plat for Montaire. a 106 unit. single-family development. Auplicant: Maplewood Development Grittman presented the staff report regarding the request for sketch plan review. Grittman noted that the site gains access from County 18 and provides access to the west and to the property to the south. The single family lots are arrayed around the internal street system. Grittman reported that the project appears to meet the requirements for R-1 A development and complies with plan requirements, although specific lot areas have not been provided at this time. One comment that has been raised by staff is that a potential for connection to the north would be recommended. There is no development planned for that area right now. Grittman noted that the City Engineer had provided comments in the staff report. Grittman explained that a portion of the project is affected by the City s work with the County Ditch 33 project. The storm water plan will be reviewed in detail with preliminary plan application. Grittman stated that based on this plan, staff believe it appropriate to go forward to preliminary plat application. There is not a specific action of approval or denial needed with sketch plat. This review is used to provide feedback to the applicant. Suchy asked if, based on the total area given, the lots are going to be % acre lots, or if a lot of the land undevelopable. Grittman stated that the gross area includes street ROW, but after that subtraction, the plat appears to meet the 16,000 requirement, with lots at a little over 1 /3 of an acre. Spartz asked if the two cul-de-sacs were dead ends, what would be street width. Grittman stated that on cul-de-sacs, a 30' face to face measurement is allowed at the cul-de-sac throat. Spartz clarified that it will open the development site. Grittman commented that the City has a standard design for oversized cul-de-sac with islands. Spartz noted concern about Ditch 33. Dragsten asked if without improvements, development can be done. Grittman stated that storm water run-off to the ditch does impact this project. However, if the Ditch 33 improvement project doesn't go forward, there is an alternate way to handle storm water. Suchy asked how far a park would be from homes. Grittman responded that there is a park on the east side of Rolling Woods at V2 to % mile from this development. He noted that the next step for this project is to go to the Parks Commission for their recommendation. Dragsten stated that the Park Commission has option to choose land or cash for dedication purposes. Mario Cocciarella, Maplewood Development, addressed the Commission. Cocciarella explained that 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/06 some of the reasoning behind seeking R-IA zoning was that the site has a large amount of relief and grade change. He indicated that 75-80% of the lots have the potential for full walk -out lots. He said that they haven't planned any specific park areas, as homes in this price range may not lend itself to that. However, Maplewood does plan to provide landscaped amenities and perhaps create a small association. Cocciarella stated that they have been working with staff to study Ditch 33. Dragsten asked if they are proposing bike paths. Cocciarella responded there would be trail between this development, through Carlisle Village, to the parks. Dragsten inquired whether the split entrance area with plantings would be maintained by the homeowners association. Cocciarella confirmed it would be, as well as the ponding areas. Dragsten asked if in terms of following the R-lA standards, if Maplewood will use one builder or whether it will be open to builders. Cocciarella answered that plan is to put together 7-9 builders, as it will be easier to control the architectural issues. He indicated that he would like to move this project forward in fall 2007. Dragsten stated his other concern is that this site looks like a valuable site, with no PUD. He noted that will require that Maplewood follow the R-lA standards. He inquired if there is anything Maplewood can provide the Commission with to state that this is the type of home that is going Cocciarella stated they can't control every home plan. However, they will provide guidelines for basic square footage, roof pitches, landscaping detail, etc. He commented that Maplewood's covenants would more than likely go beyond ordinance. Dragsten stated that the Commission would be interested in at least reviewing those guidelines. Suchy commented that she appreciated the cul-de-sacs and agrees with the comment that those seeking upper end may be past desiring parks. She stated that she would like to see some amenities worked in. Cocciarella stated that association fees would be nominal to take care of that. Suchy stated that she was happy to see the larger lot sizes. Cocciarella commented that they are aware that they may potentially loose some lots because of grade change. Hilgart noted that he was pleased not to see a PUD on this proposal. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development to allow an off -premise si_en in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. - CONTINUE Applicant: Citv of Monticello MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN OFF -PREMISE SIGN IN A B-4 DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 10. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorders' 11