Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-01-2007Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Chairman Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: None Council Liaison Present: Brian Stumpf Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak, Steve Grittman — NAC, Kimberly Holien — NAC 1. Call to Order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a full quorum of the Commission and the presence of Council Liaison Stumpf. 2. Apuroval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 3rd, 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 3rd52007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen Comments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Open, and Outdoor Sales, Oren and Outdoor Storage and Minor Auto Repair., Applicant: Moon Motors Planner Grittman provided the staff report, highlighting that the applicant had previously received a conditional use permit for open and outdoor storage, open and outdoor sales and display and minor auto repair. City ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. Grittman stated that as the applicants still plan on construction of a facility, they are asking for extension of the conditional use permit for one year. Grittman reported that staff recommend approval of the request. Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Spartz inquired how many times the applicant can come back for an extension. Grittman stated that the ordinance does not specify or limit the number of extensions allowed. Dragsten asked if the applicant was in attendance. The applicant was not in attendance. Spartz inquired about the time frame for extension. Grittman stated that a specific request hadn't been made, but staff would recommend an extension of one year. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE MAY 8TH5 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO MAY 8TH, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Development Stage PUD to allow an expansion of Oren & Outdoor Storage and Outdoor Sales & Display. AnpliCant: Home Depot Planner Grittman reported that the applicant has requested tabling of this item, as they would like time to prepare additional supplemental information for their request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing- Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from industrial to commercial and a request for Rezoning from I-1 A to B-4 (Highwav Business). A_mlicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant has requested a change in land use requiring a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. The application review in this report is purely for the land use designation, the comprehensive plan and zoning designation, only. Grittman stated that if the requests are successful through the Council, the applicant would most likely be required to come back through for review of the site plan via a conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Grittman indicated that the current Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for industrial use. Broadening the tax base and targeting high quality businesses are cited as economic development goals with the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. These goals apply no matter what the land use in this area. Grittman noted that the City is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan. Through that process there has been discussion on the land use designation in this area with the task force, but there has been no consensus. From a staff perspective, the 1996 goals will be used as a reference point and evidence for consideration of the proposed change. According to updated information, the City currently has approximately 135.5 total acres of industrial land available, Grittman reported. Specifically within the Monticello Commerce Center, 67.5 acres of industrial zoned are available. At the time of adoption, the current Comprehensive Plan indicated that there was 113 acres of B-4 zoned land available in the City. Grittman noted that there is an Environment Assessment Worksheet underway on this project. He stated that whenever a commercial project of sufficient size comes forward, the City is required to complete an EAW as part of the review process. Information from the preliminary EAW has been provided in this report. Grittman stated that staff believes the EAW provides guidance that will help is analyze the request, particularly when looking at traffic. Grittman reported that Chelsea Road has been designated as a major collector for the south side of the community. Right now, it has been constructed as a rural section and functions as a local street. The plan has been for Chelsea to be reconstructed as a three lane roadway. Grittman noted that there has been a significant amount of discussion on whether the upgrade to Chelsea and the proposed project are connected,. He stated that is not the case. The upgrade may have had something to do with Mills decision to seek this location, but the reconstruction was not created by the Mills project. Grittman also referred to the existing assessment agreement with the current property owner of the subject site. He reported that a financing link was made that if the City did rezone the property, the property owners would be required to pay additional amount of assessment on the I-94 and CSAH 18 interchange. He indicated that there was no agreement to actually rezone the property, instead the agreement only provided the option for the event that it was rezoned. Grittman stated that there was no legal way for the City to make an obligation to rezone to the property owner. He stated that this item should not be linked to the land use decision. It was restated that although there has been a lot of discussion about that financial consideration, there is no City obligation to rezone this property for commercial purposes. In regard to traffic data, Grittman referred to the EAW, which stated that there are 3650 vehicle trips per day currently on Chelsea Road. Under a light industrial use, it is estimated that the site would generate just over 1700 additional trips per 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 day. If the property were to be rezoned for this commercial use, the increase would be something over 11,000 trips per day. There is a difference in projected trips between the commercial and industrial use of over 8,200 trips. The draft EAW analyzes intersection and traffic lane function for determining what kind of improvements would be needed. Grittman stated that the current status of Chelsea is a grade A. The worst rating is an F, for no traffic flow. It is estimated that if the commercial designation is approved, that level of service would be a B. Grittman commented that this is generally considered to be an acceptable level, with some delay, but traffic would flow at a reasonable level without significant congestion. Grittman indicated that the staff report summarizes pros and cons on either side of the land use re -designation issue. The site is located in full view of Interstate 94, just west of the new interchange, Grittman stated. The interchange was not in place at the time of development of the industrial park, nor the comp plan. Grittman said that when there is a limited amount of freeway exposure, the freeway exposure is a limited commodity, and it is reasonable to consider whether the City would consider rezoning. If it were not for the interchange, Grittman stated that this area although highly visible, is not highly accessible. This is an important factor when considering land use for the area. Regarding the land uses, Grittman stated that while the area is zoned for industrial, the surrounding land uses in actuality represent a mix of uses. Grittman pointed out that the important distinction is the actual land use, not the zoning. In fact, the area is not entirely industrial in nature. There is vacant land zoned for commercial to the east, vacant land to the north of this site on Chelsea, a mix of industrial and office uses to the west and a school to the south. Grittman reported that often discussed in rezonings such as this, is whether or not this is spot zoning. That isn't necessarily the case here. Grittman stated that "spot zoning" refers to an incompatible use. Grittman commented that had none of the land in the area been developed now, it would be a fair statement to say that the raw land would have been considered for commercial and guided that way. However, he stated that the fact is that there is existing industrial in place. Grittman presented points that would argue in favor of maintaining existing zoning. As mentioned earlier, the EAW indicates there would be a significant increase in traffic. With a mix of retail commercial and industrial traffic, Grittman stated that there will be traffic conflicts, even though the level of service only changes from an A to B. This is due to acceleration factors for trucks and access to Chelsea Road. The traffic will affect industrial operations. Also, truck traffic will affect retail traffic. 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 The second item, Grittman stated, relates to the City's greater land use pattern. He referred to the zoning map, stating that the green areas shown on the zoning map are commercial. There is a significant supply of B-3 and B-4 properties, possibly where a Mills Fleet Farm facility would be able to locate. Grittman indicated that is significant as the City has taken steps to identify appropriate location for commercial land uses. These include considering the Highway 25 corridor and Chelsea Road area to the west. Grittman reported that incompatible land uses can also affect land value. In general, a large retail development has an overall up pressure on land values. As a regional consideration, it will also increase land values. However, it has a different affect on other properties. For new industrial uses of high value, it may be fair to say that the facility will not increase property values, as the redevelopment to commercial opportunity is not available. As such, the higher property values may not be the case for some of the properties in this area. In summary, Grittman stated that he thinks there are factors that play into both considerations. The change in designation will be a change in policy. Although there is no other application for commercial in this area, Mills has indicated interest in locating a gas station on the north side of Chelsea Road. Grittman said that new commercial users create pressure for other commercial users. The area along the interstate and Chelsea Road is ripe for that kind of pressure. Grittman commented that while that isn't part of this consideration, it is a reality. He commented that it may be likely that north side rezoning requests will follow. Thus, Grittman recommended that the Commission should be looking at long term land use in the area as part of this decision. Grittman indicated that the two most important considerations are as follows. If a change is appropriate, there is a mix of uses to support the introduction of commercial, despite uniform zoning. On the other hand, there is a significant industrial investment existing in the area. Staff has prepared findings for both considerations. Grittman noted that all of these points have been summarized in the staff report. Dragsten confirmed that the Commission is just dealing with the 33 acres on the south side of Chelsea. Grittman answered that was correct. Dragsten referenced the financing and asked for further clarification. Grittman responded that the City has an agreement with the property owner, that if this land is rezoned, the property owner will pay the City more money as a part of the construction of the interchange. Grittman stated that there is no obligation for, and in fact the City could not enter an agreement guaranteeing, rezoning. Dragsten stated that would make sense, that if the land was worth more, it could be assessed for more. Gabler asked if the developer is promoting the land as commercial, are they just assuming that the City will rezone. Grittman stated that he wouldn't presume to speak for the developer, but they have the option to bring the request forward. Gabler asked why Mills is looking at this property. Grittman stated that he would presume it was freeway exposure. 5 Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/01 /07 Spartz asked how much vacant commercial land is available. Grittman responded that the comprehensive plan indicates approximately 130 acres. Spartz asked how many existing unoccupied building there are for commercial purposes, citing the Maus Foods building. Grittman responded that he does not know. Dragsten stated that he didn't believe that there was much available. Hilgart clarified that the property to the east is zoned B-2. Grittman confirmed. Hilgart asked what that entailed. Grittman stated that it is a general commercial zoning designation, although B-4 is slightly broader. Grittman explained that B-4 is labeled regional business, B-2 is more neighborhood business -oriented. However, the uses do cross over. Hilgart inquired if there would be a significant difference in traffic in one over the other. Grittman stated that the traffic information is based on the retail use, not the zoning designation. Hilgart stated that he is trying to figure out why the change from I-1 A to B-2 in that area. O'Neill responded that area was zoned before the four-way interchange. It was considered to be a node of commercial, but it would serve the local neighborhood. Voight inquired if within the EAW, in designating the impact from A to B, it is presuming the upgrade to Chelsea Road. Grittman stated that it does assume the upgrade. Hilgart asked if when the comp plan was updated in 1996, did the City have any idea that there would be an interchange. Grittman stated that it was certainly discussed, but it was not known when the interchange would be put into place. Hilgart questioned that if the City knew it was possible, why would it be zoned industrial. Grittman stated that it was zoned industrial prior to 1996, and it was carried forward in the 1996 update. Dragsten stated that in 1996, it was talked about that there would be some interchange, but it didn't really say where. O'Neill stated that at that time, the City had funded only the two legs, thinking that would be sufficient. O'Neill stated that the state wouldn't allow Monticello to add to the design until the City itself had the money to do it. The planning was predicated on limited access. Dragsten noted the two page item submitted from the IDC. The IDC was requesting that the south side of Chelsea between Fallon and CSAH 18 remain as industrial. There was also a rezoning protest petition from area property owners, stating the same. Dragsten stated that those were entered into the record. Dragsten referenced the City's 135 acre industrial park and inquired how much would be buildable. Grittman stated that the number came from the Economic Development Director. Dragsten referenced that the primary factors for the Commission were going to be the mixture of uses, and affecting the market values of industrial uses in close proximity. Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Grittman noted that if the Commission does feel that a commercial use is appropriate, staff would recommend a PUD zoning designation, which allows the City broader zoning control. Dragsten asked if there is the ability to zone as PUD within the ordinance. Grittman stated that it would need to be tabled and brought back to allow for that amendment. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Brad Barger, property owner at 301 Chelsea Road, spoke to the Commission. Barger thanked the Commission for taking comments on the item. Barger stated that quite a few owners in the industrial park have looked at this proposal in terms of the property vales. He indicated that most of the industries looked at this as an industrial park, with the associated uses, including trucks coming in and out every day. With the addition of the interchange, Barger stated that they have noted more vandalism with the increase in traffic. He stated that the proposed changes to Chelsea Road, including walkways, are something that industrial property owners do not want. Barger asked about the traffic level of service. Grittman confirmed it as an A level currently. Barger stated that the older part of the road is to west, with the newer section to the east. Grittman stated that while that is true, neither could be described as new. Barger stated that it seems the road reconstruction was put together for rezoning; if the whole road is that bad, wouldn't the whole thing need to be completed. With all the traffic, it would seem that the City should do the whole road. Barger commented that it appears that Mills is driving the Chelsea reconstruction. Barger also stated that with trips and traffic and trucks, industries do feel it would be safety issue. Barger noted again the cost of the assessments, and the City's stated goal of building good jobs within the community. Barger indicated that he doesn't feel it is a compatible use. Voight asked Grittman what section of Chelsea Road would be improved. O'Neill replied that it is the section from Fenning to Fallon. O'Neill reported that the City has a number of roads that need to be reconstructed, but only bites off what it can chew in terms of cost. Doug Harmon, owner of Twin City Die Cast, addressed the Commission. Harmon stated their third and newest plant is located off of Chelsea Road. In looking at denying the request, the report talks about higher quality light industry. Harmon noted that industry also looks at exposure to the interstate. When Twin City Die Cast started to look at property, there were a number of properties of interest. He stated that they enjoyed working with people in Monticello, and the site was a great location. Harmon reported that a number of the nicest industrial parks have been located off an interstate. Harmon noted again that the zoning calls for higher quality light industry. Harmon stated that he had their payroll people pull their company wages. The average wage was $18.62 per hour, without benefits. The vision that Monticello 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 has as far as creating a higher quality in the area is working. The industries that have located in the area have supported that goal. Harmon stated that there are other commercial properties available and that the increase in traffic volumes will be detrimental to the businesses. Harmon referenced a die cast peer facility located in Madison, Wisconsin. He stated that they were the first business in the area, and over time, the City opened the area up for retail and commercial. Since that time, that business has been in three different lawsuits. Harmon stated that he would agree with the IDC that the industrial use is the highest and best use of the property. He said that when locating the Monticello plant, they did so to be able to expand two more times. He reported that the next expansion would have been in the Monticello area. If this proposal is approved Harmon stated that they will have to give serious consideration on whether to expand on this piece of property. Hilgart asked how many employees are at Twin City Die Cast. Harmon responded that there are approximately 50 permanent full-time. Hilgart inquired how many lived in Monticello. Patty Haiby, HR Administrator, responded that about 2/3 live in Monticello. Dragsten asked if traffic is Harmon's biggest concern. Harmon responded that traffic would definitely be a concern. There will be congestion and brings in concerns with security. However, another concern is that their expansion could be a problem, as different types of land owners may object. Dragsten asked if Twin City Die Cast generates noise. Harmon responded that noise is limited. Dragsten thanked him for this comments and complimented Harmon on his business. Mary Barger, Suburban Manufacturing at 301 Chelsea Road, addressed the Commission. Barger stated that she has been a member of the IDC for close to 8 years and has helped bring and recruit businesses to Monticello. Barger said that she truly believes that a regional center for technology and health care is becoming more viable for Monticello. However, she stated that she believes the spot zoning will not enhance the community. Barger referenced a letter from surrounding property owners, indicating that they believe the rezoning will diminish building values, increase the potential for crime, and will negatively impact traffic, and offers no supporting benefit to the existing businesses. Barger commented that the subject property is prime for a world -class facility. All of the reasons a commercial business would want to locate there, are the same for industry. Barger urged the Commission not to rezone, as she stated that she does not believe it would not be in the best interest of the community. Don Tomann, addressed the Commission as president of and partial owner of UMC. Tomann reported that UMC is a family owned business, located at 500 E Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Chelsea Road. He said that he echoes what Doug Harmon and Brad and Mary Barger commented on. Tomann also thanked Steve Grittman for a balanced presentation of the issues. Tomann stated that he wanted to make a few points of clarification. Tomann referenced O'Neill's comments on Chelsea Road and the assessment agreement. Tomann stated that two sections of the agreement specifically talk about Chelsea Road and the improvements, and tie the interchange improvements into the discussion about the rezoning. Tomann indicated that he recognizes that at any time the land owner can bring forward a petition for rezoning, but that he believes the road has been brought forward because it is in the agreement. Tomann read from the agreement a section referencing timelines for completion of Chelsea Road. Tomann stated that the agreement in itself is the crux of a lot of discussion as it is a pivotal point. Tomann reported that he has been speaking with Commissioners and the Mayor, but nobody wants to talk about all of the pieces together. The point he said he wanted to make is that this agreement was put together between the City and a private landowner, and there was no involvement by other landowners. He indicated that there was no discussion, and that they were never notified that discussions were occurring. The first time land owners heard about this was in January or December of this past year. At that time, Tomann stated that he was invited to City Hall in reference to the pending assessment for the Chelsea Road project. Tomann stated that when they bought this property, they asked specifically in 2002 about assessments. Toman said that he don't know how much this road plan was part of the City's plan then. If this was planned pre-2002, UMC was not told about this. There was mention of the interchange, but there was no solid plan put in place. Tomann stated that a pavement layover is very different from a three lane road that is really a boulevard. Tomann read a letter prepared on behalf of UMC. Tomann referenced his discussions with the Mayor on the topic and with the developer about redevelopment and expansion. He indicated that the City doesn't know if it got a good deal or a bad deal on the assessment issue, because there was nobody else involved. The City doesn't know what the other entities could have offered. Tomann stated that there is a whole lot of money to be generated for an interchange than for a road that doesn't benefit him. He stated that it is very disappointing, as he didn't think he would be standing in front of a Commission and Council fighting for his business. Tomann explained that he had an experience in Corcoran where the City couldn't supply what was needed to expand. Monticello offered a beautiful park for growth and expansion. Tomann told the Commission that he has 135 employees, with an average wage of about $62,000 without benefits and growing. UMC brought 90 jobs to the City and added 45 new jobs. Tomann referenced his expansion plans in light of approval, stating that his only choice would be to move the entire facility. E Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Tomann commented that he thinks it is the job of Commission and Council to paint a complete picture. He said that he doesn't think anyone is against Mills, but the question is why this spot. It has been pointed out, that if there was no industrial, it would be an easy decision, but it is there. Tomann asked the Commission to respect landowners' ability to develop the property and respect land rights equally. Tomann noted that it is cheaper to satisfy the customer you have, rather than risk for those coming down the road. Tomann stated that as a business owner, this item causes questions. Yes, there is other industrial land available, but the City isn't going to fill it up if things are subject to change. In closing, Tomann asked that the property owner's rights and promises by the City be honored and upheld, that the City embrace jobs and businesses and learn how to get a win -win for everyone. Dragsten asked about the agreement. Grittman stated that he believes that it is not the Planning Commission's job to decipher what is going to be done or isn't done in terms of a financial arrangement. The Commission's job is to talk about land use. Grittman noted that staff hasn't seen the letter that Tomann had written. Dragsten asked why they would not be able to expand. Tomann drew an analogy stating that perhaps a husband and wife have one child and move into a community. Then, the City changes the zoning around them to something other than residential. They're having triplets. They need to expand. Are they going to put up with what is going on around them? They're going to make a decision about how to make their investment pay off. Tomann stated that is why he made the point about respecting property rights. He can't expand his business, as it wouldn't make sense to put up a 40,000 square foot building that would be worth less. Dragsten asked if it comes down to traffic. Tomann stated that it comes down to investment. He stated that if he wasn't going to grow the business, it would be fine, but he is going to expend. Tomann stated that while the traffic is a real problem, the issue is that as an industrial property, it will be worth less. Dragsten asked how Tomann would know that an industry wouldn't come in that would create the same amount of traffic. Tomann stated that from a business point of view, when you move into an industrial community, you know what you move into. It isn't out of the ordinary to expect more trucks. He said that commercial brings in different types of traffic that may cause conflict. Dragsten stated that if you know what the end user is, you know what the traffic patterns will be and it may be a benefit to your company. For example, the traffic may occur at off -setting times and may not be as bad as an industrial user corning and going at the same time. Tomann stated that he doesn't want to make the argument about traffic. Tomann stated that while traffic is the easiest to picture, what is less obvious is the impact on property owners. Tomann explained that he has 135 employees that depend on these jobs. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Dragsten noted that every property owner has the right to make an application. Tomann agreed, but added that in dealing with the cities that he has, the only thing a city has going for it, is the comprehensive planning and zoning. Tomann asked if this proposal was going in the middle of a residential area, would it even be a question. Mayor Clint Herbst, 9801 Gillard Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mayor Herbst stated that while he didn't intend to speak, he felt he needed to address the characterization of the agreement as seeming to be backroom deal. Mayor Herbst stated that the previous Council and Mayor had worked through the process of trying to work through funding of interchange, trying to leave present industry without a burden to pay for the interchange. Instead, the City tried to work with property owners with vacant land. Herbst explained that when he came to the Council, they took the agreement, with minor changes, and brought it forward. He noted that everything happened in the Council chambers and that it isn't a simple letter, but rather a whole agreement. Stumpf added the comment that at one of the recent Council meetings, it was stated that Mills was not a welcome business. However, it was stated that if it was a hotel, or conference center, it would be. Stumpf stated that he took offense to that comment. Dragsten noted that as Planning Commissioners, there are not here to debate the soassessment agreement issue. 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, addressed the Commission. Koropchak welcomed business owners and Mills Fleet Farm. Koropchak stated that part of her job is to increase tax base, and manage business retention, redevelopment and jobs. Koropchak explained that economic development doesn't just doesn't include industrial development. It is supportive of schools, housing, commercial, and hospital district expansion. She stated that economic development recognizes the entire quality of life issue. Koropchak stated that her role as Economic Development Director isn't always easy and that she doesn't always agree with staff s recommendation. Koropchak indicated that the she invests time and energy in trying to recruit high quality businesses. She stated that she would address those items via a presentation. Koropchak stated that she supports business retention, and as such, while she encourages Fleet Farm to come to Monticello, she would encourage them to look at a different site. Koropchak stated that during a Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting in March, the issue of land use in this area of Chelsea was discussed. She reported that it was the consensus that the group favored the south as industrial, with the north going commercial, but it was mixed. Koropchak stated that no formal recommendation was made. 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Koropchak stated that the 135 acres noted was a total of all three industrial districts as compared to the 113 acres of just B-4 zoning. In response to the question on developable acreage for the Otter Creek site, there are 53 acres left as developable. The difference in characteristics in zoning districts was noted. Koropchak stated that Monticello should be proud of the companies we bring to Monticello, because both the City and private developer have covenants. Koropchak stated that when the City uses local incentives, the purpose is to create jobs and tax base, but also to get a quality product. Koropchak commented that when talking about alternative sites, the property adjacent to interchange is an option. It is already zoned B-2, and is more of a compatible use. It is already a business zone, has the same property owner and has freeway exposure. As for the subject site, with future development along Chelsea Road, the south side will no longer have freeway exposure because the north will be built up. Koropchak referred to the traffic analysis, stating that as far as what the retail box generates, it should be recognized that as north side develops, more traffic than this will be generated, so reconstruction would be needed. The proposal before the Commission represents a lot of hard surface, Koropchak reported. She said that at one time Dundas Road was intended to go through this property and intersect Chelsea Road. The discussion for industrial on this property was to provide green space. Koropchak stated that in comparison to an industrial use, if you took that 33 acres for commercial, it would need to have 10 acres of green space. Lastly, she stated that as Economic Development Director, she was supportive of rezoning other industrial properties to commercial, including the Ryan site on the north side of the interchange. Koropchak stated that the City of Monticello does offer TIF to all properties, subject to meeting state requirements. The city -owned land is marketed at $3.00 per square foot, plus trunk fees, for properties that do not meet criteria, which is equivalent to other industrial land without TIF. Koropchak cited an article in BoomTown USA, which discusses where business owners live. She summarized by saying that business owners get involved in the community and noted that Monticello has people in the industrial park that are involved at all levels in the community. They invest in their buildings, but also in their communities. Koropchak distributed supporting data to the Commission. Koropchak stated that she had asked the industrial property owners to provide wages, but also called the County assessor to get market values of buildings. The spreadsheet presented compared industrial to commercial values. Koropchak noted also that industrial is likely to expand, while commercial properties do not. Koropchak reported that in is the long run, comparable industrial and commercial properties are approximately even in land value. Koropchak said that the big difference is in wages, referring to number and level of average annual wage positions, without benefits. 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Koropchak indicated that reason supports her opinion on why it is important to support the businesses that make large investments within the community. The goal is to retain and create jobs so that employees can buy high -end homes. In summary, Koropchak stated that supports that the 33 acres to remain industrial, and encourages Fleet Farm to seek out another site. She encouraged the Commission to support existing zoning and recruit new jobs. Voight asked what the forecast is for industrial growth on the 33 acres, or even in the general area. Koropchak stated that she would hope that in working with the property owners, we could support them by using TIF if needed. Koropchak stated that she does not know of an industrial project looking there currently. She said that she does recognize that it takes much longer to develop industrial property. Koropchak referenced the HRA and the recruitment and agreements involved in securing industrial users. Koropchak stated that business owners make a lot of commitments, and the City needs to do the same. Bruce Buxton spoke to the Commission as a representative of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. Buxton stated that the site was selected totally independent of anything else going on within the City. He indicated that they have been looking at this area for 5-7 years. He said that they are aware of alternative sites, but for various reasons, they were not acceptable to Mills Fleet Farm. Prior to the interchange coming in, Buxton stated that they would have never considered this site. Because of the interchange, he stated that it made this a viable site for the facility. It is a large enough site to accommodate the use, it is in a mixed variety of other uses, and there is a synergy of commercial in the area. It is also not too far from Highway 25, nor from the residential properties. It has good freeway access, and freeway exposure. Buxton stated that it has all the things that Mills' views as positive for business. He stated that they did not come to Monticello to start a disagreement within the community. Buxton indicated that they do think that the interchange changed the complexity of the area and that is why they have made the request. Buxton stated that Mills owns their own facilities and builds quality buildings. Buxton stated that he had just met the land owner, as they have dealt with Mr. Pfeffer as the land owner's representative. He reiterated that they found this site as a result of the interchange. Buxton stated that he is happy to answer any questions by the Commission Dragsten asked how many Fleet Farms are built each year. Buxton responded only 1 on average per year. He said that the company is owned by two brothers who build what they can afford. He noted that the oldest to newest stores are a night and day difference. Dragsten posed the question that if Mills owned ten other sites, it could be ten years before they built here. Buxton responded that some locations are property acquisitions for new replacing old, or perhaps just aren't ready. Monticello ten 13 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 years ago wasn't ready. Buxton stated that it doesn't take traffic to support a store like this. 4n the other hand, many of your residents currently go to other locations, and they drive to do so. Buxton said that it is getting to a point where Monticello has such a synergy where residents don't have to go elsewhere to shop. Dragsten stated that obviously Monticello would like to have the company here, the zoning has nothing to do with that. Buxton stated that he understood. O'Neill asked Buxton if he could describe any similar situations. Buxton stated that they just acquired property in Ankeny, Iowa, a suburb if Des Moines. The property acquired is all industrial. To the west are large distributors and warehouse structures, but one -quarter mile north and south, it is all retail. Buxton reported that they had made an application for rezoning, which so far has been approved. The insulation distributor to the west has been looking for a different site. Hilgart asked if the zoning isn't changed, will Mills look elsewhere. Buxton replied yes, but couldn't say that it would be in Monticello. He indicated that so far, other Monticello locations have been unacceptable. The large parcel east of 25 that was cited has a large powerline corridor running through it. There is no way to fit the building and not interfere with the transmission line. Shawn Weinand, owner of the subject property, addressed the Commission. Weinand stated that he wanted to clarify some items. Weinand pointed out that the property right across from Twin City Die Casting is already commercial, and has been for 20 years. He noted that when the pieces of property in the Commerce Center were sold for industrial development, property owners were made aware that Chelsea Road would be upgraded, as there was no storm sewer, no curb and no fire hydrants. Weinand explained that he has entered into contracts with the City for dozens of years. He stated that he has made a huge investment in the community and that every development he has done has a development agreement that is negotiated with staff and the Council. This situation was no different. Weinand stated that a committee was put together to bring an interchange to Monticello. There were many meetings at which it was noted that it was important not to charge the industrial users and school. Weinand remarked that there was only a short period of time to develop the interchange financing. At that time, he did not have a buyer identified, as Ryan Companies did, and that it was not his idea to bring in the interchange. Weinand stated that if the issue is commitment, he has been committed to this property for 20 years. Weinand noted that the same people here at the IDC developed a City industrial park to compete. The subject site is difficult to ie develop, as the road through the site would cost more than what it would return in development. He said that the property would be best suited for a warehouse, which would not qualify for TIF, generate a lot of hard surface, a fair tax base, 14 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 and not a lot of jobs. Weinand explained that he committed over $5 million to the interchange and Chelsea Road improvements. He cited the contribution as a gamble, just as when he contributed for the construction of School Boulevard and built businesses on West Chelsea Road. Weinand stated that he is also committed to the community. When the City asks for an easement, he noted that he doesn't sell it, it is given. In regard to the agreement being discussed, Weinand stated that when he negotiated, it was based on good faith and the idea that he could bring world class retailers to town. He indicated that growth is a matter of serious concern when Xcel may take away tax base. He stated that Monticello needs some immediate tax base. Weinand stated that the numbers on Koropchak's sheet seem a bit confusing. Weinand cited other examples of commercial tax base contributions, including Wal-Mart, which has a tax base of about $350,000. The Mills store as proposed will generate over $1.5 million dollars alone in fees. Weinand stated that when the agreement was negotiated, he didn't know what the property would be in terms of commercial or industrial. They have worked with a number of property representatives. He noted that they had also worked with Mills on the power line issue on the site mentioned. Weinand explained that he owns 80 acres of the commercial property mentioned, but this is the only site that works for this user. Weinand stated that in regard to approval of this use, when the housing market comes back, Monticello will have made a huge statement. Weinand stated that he doesn't believe there is a devaluation in adjacent industrial properties; there are many examples. Weinand stated that in fact, the site UMC sold off in Corcoran is industrial and commercial mixed. Weinand noted that 15 years ago, he came to Monticello and stated that he could bring the outlet mall — the one that got build in Albertville. However, he recognized that he was young and didn't have a reputation. Now, residents ask why didn't we get the mall. Weinand stated that he is glad Monticello didn't because there are greater opportunities. Weinand commented that he believed it would be irresponsible not to rezone for this user. He noted that everyone talks about jobs, but this town is built by blue collar people that are still driving somewhere else to go to those $30,000 - $50,000 jobs. He also stated that community kids need to work somewhere. This user is paying good wages. Weinand explained that he built the Rogers industrial park and those types of jobs are not coming here right now. He reported that in the last 20 years, he has sold S pieces of property for industrial use; it takes a long time. Monticello needs to grow now. Dragsten stated that he agrees with Weinand on many of the points he makes, but referred to economics as something that the Council has to deal with. Dragtsen 15 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 stated that the Commission appreciates the work that he and the City staff do to bring business to Monticello. Bill Tapper addressed the Commission as owner of properties at 212 Chelsea and 1324 Edmonson, both in the 1-2 portion of the industrial park. Tapper stated that he has been a member of the IDC for 14 years and has been active in bringing industry to Monticello and participated in bringing UMC to the community. Tapper stated that he has contended for some time that Monticello has the potential to be the next Maple Grove from a commercial point of view, because of its strategic location on transportation corridors and its position between St. Cloud and Minneapolis. He said that he had also participated when the 1996 comprehensive plan was developed. Tapper stated that at that time, there were discussions of an interchange, but that he didn't think anyone considered it a serious opportunity. As such, Tapper commented that there wasn't any consideration as to whether to change the zoning at that time. It was zoned industrial, so the idea was to leave it because there wasn't good access and there wasn't any other industrial property. There was very little pressure to zone it anything else. Tapper stated that as one industrial property owner a short distance away, he would like to tell the Commission that he is in favor of the rezoning. He indicated that when looking at this property being rezoned, one has to take into account what is best for the City. Tapper noted that Monticello has very little property available with very good accessible freeway exposure. In keeping with his thinking about Monticello's tremendous potential to be a commercial hub, Tapper stated that the City must consider rezoning to commercial. He reiterated that he believes it to be in the best interest of the city and is the best use of the land. Tapper stated that it is also the right thing to do because of the number of jobs it will bring into town and the tax base and the assessment base. Perhaps more important, Tapper said that this kind of commercial development brings a vibrance and excitement to the town. It makes others want to come here. He noted that industrial development doesn't generate that kind of excitement. An industrial user cites this as a look at what that community has to offer owners and employees; Tapper stated that he believes it will enhance the community. The next thing Tapper stated that he wanted to point out is that the bank that owns his properties perceives that Mill's location in Monticello will enhance the values of his properties. For his purposes, he said that it increases borrowing potential and provides him with more opportunity to use collateral for other expansions. Tapper commented that one of the items that wasn't mentioned was the proposed Fallon Avenue Bridge. He said that traffic on this overpass would have a substantial impact on mitigating traffic resulting from this development. For example, Tapper noted that when looking at Chelsea Road versus 7tb Street, which are similar, he doesn't find any traffic problems with the new retail development. There isn't a lot of traffic, and Tapper indicated that he can't 16 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 comprehend a lot of traffic problems. He commented that the amount of truck traffic in the industrial park is not tremendous. Tapper pointed out that Twin City Die Cast is directly across from a B-2 area. So, he stated that he can't comprehend how this would impact them any differently. Tapper also explained that the property across from the City's own industrial park is zoned commercial. Tapper cited other circumstances in other communities where there is a substantial amount of commercial and industrial located in the same general vicinity. In closing, Tapper stated that as an industrial property owner less than % block from the proposed property, he would like to encourage the Commission to consider the rezoning. Dragsten asked how long Tapper's facilities had been in Monticello. Tapper replied that he had moved his business in 1990, and expanded in 1996. Two years ago, he explained that he bought the H Window Building and expanded it a year later. Dragsten asked Tapper about traffic. Tapper stated that it is what you'd expect in an industrial area. Tapper noted that in comparison to other City streets, such as Edmonson, Chelsea is a relatively good road. He stated that rebuilding Chelsea benefits me very little. Sutmpf asked Tapper if he was given the opportunity to look at the petition. Tapper stated that he had not. He did note that he was the only dissenting member regarding the IDC recommendation. Matt Froelich, property owner of 9766 Fallon Avenue, addressed the Commission. Froelich stated that he is an adjoining property owner and is supportive of the rezoning. He stated that he did not get an opportunity to see the petition. Froelich supported the rezoning for the same reasons that had been stated. Stumpf expressed that he favors finishing Chelsea to the west, but the City can only complete what it has money for. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Voight stated that he would like to express appreciation for all of the information from the business owners from both positions. He noted that he found Koropchak's spreadsheet to be helpful. Voight stated that he empathizes with business owners, but at this time, it may be that the City can't waste an opportunity for B-4 zoning with highway exposure. Voight commented on the excitement such a development would create. Voight suggested that the community seems to want it and perhaps needs it. Voight indicated that it is a difficult decision and that he has many conflicting thoughts on it. Hilgart stated that there are pros and cons, and the decision has gone back and forth in his mind. Had there not been any industrial users, Hilgart stated that he 17 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 would lean toward rezoning. He agreed that it is a difficult decision. Hilgart questioned that if there was no Fleet Farm, would the Commission even be talking about this. Dragsten noted that the Commission has to take the economics out of the decision and consider what is the best zoning for the City moving forward. Spartz commented that someone had told him growth can't happen without big boxes, so that may make it hard to say no. However, in going back to 1996 comprehensive plan, the Commission is dealing with that zoning and land use. He noted that industrial land uses are the most challenging to site, which is why they came first in the new comp plan update. With that being said, Spartz noted that the City has put an emphasis on move up housing and good jobs. This is not to say Mills doesn't do a good job. Spartz stated that on the economic side, the jobs from the I -IA are needed. He said that he doesn't think it's good to have mixed uses in an industrial area. Spartz indicated that he hopes Mills would still consider being here, but this is a concern for this area. Spartz noted that the interchange just changed last fall, maybe there are other opportunities. Dragsten clarified that Spartz was referring to perhaps another industrial opportunity. Spartz agreed. Gabler suggested the Commission take a vote. Stumpf had no comments. Dragsten reiterated that the Commission is looking at what would best serve the City in the long run. If this is zoned commercial, more than likely, the City will see other portions being requested for commercial. Dragsten stated that while he can't speak for Mills, the visibility is important. However, he stated that he thinks there are other sites in the City and although this site is convenient, it is also convenient for other users. Hilgart asked Grittman to go over the suggested PUD zoning. Grittman stated that the first action the Commission would need to take is related to the comprehensive plan. Then, the zoning would be considered. If the Commission is interested in commercial land use, the current ordinance offers a selection of zoning districts; B-4 can support Mills. As an alternative, staff has proposed a PUD zone, which for which a zoning ordinance would be written specifically for that parcel. If that were the direction Commission would like to go, the City would need to notice for that and consider at a later date. Hilgart noted that the vote would probably be up to Gabler. Voight commented that similar to Hilgart, his mind has changed since the discussion has started. Dragsten noted that the other option is to table the item and clarify information, then bring it back to the June meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE MILLS FLEET FARM RETAIL STORE m Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 AND MOTOR FUEL STATION USES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST CONTAINED WITHIN THE CONCLUSIONS SECTION OF THE MAY 19 2007 STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FAILS, 2-3 WITH DRAGSTEN, GABLER, AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST CONTAINED WITHIN THE CONCLUSIONS SECTION OF THE MAY 19 2007 STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. Voight asked if tabling the item would be an option. Dragsten stated that would be his recommendation. It would seem to be in the Commission's best interest, as there are certain things that do not apply to the Commission discussion. He stated that he would be in favor of waiting. Hilgart asked if Dragsten believes that the way the Commission votes will determine how Council votes. Stumpf stated that there is a lot more detail the Council will be asked to consider versus what the Commission is dealing with. Dragsten asked for the procedure on withdrawing the motion. Grittman reviewed that Spartz simply had to withdraw the motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO DENY AND TO MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Public Hearinia — Consideration of a reauest for Development State Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District to allow for the expansion of a medical office buildiniz. Applicant: Monticello -Bit Lake Hospital District Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien explained that the hospital has prepared an application for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary and Final Plat for the construction of a 60,000 square foot clinic addition. Holien stated that the proposed project also includes the construction of a parking lot and construction of a parking garage. The subject site is located at 1013 Hart Boulevard and is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed Use. 19 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 Holien stated that the applicant's revised plan indicates that the proposed maintenance garage meets the district's required setback, but noted that by ordinance, a rear yard setback variance can be accommodated by the PUD. Holien stated that the applicant is seeking variances to the required number of parking stalls, and minimum parking stall size. Holien indicated that parking will consist of an additional 269 parking stalls. To accommodate the additional parking, as well as access, the applicant is requesting vacation of Dayton Street. The hospital has also provided proof of a joint parking agreement with Monticello Middle School. Holien reported that the plan reflects a parking total that is 4 stalls short, although the overall site has adequate parking. Staff does not expect that the stall deficiency will create a problem. Three of the proposed stalls do not meet the minimum stall size requirement. These were reviewed at concept stage and do not have a negative impact. Holien stated that as noted, the applicant is requesting a number of vacations, including Dayton Street, Hart Blvd. and a portion of East River Street. City staff would support vacation of Dayton and Hart, but would request a drainage and utility easement over Hart. These vacations will be considered as part of a separate public hearing at the City Council. The City is not willing to vacate River Street, but is willing to consider a license agreement for the hospital to occupy the right of way as shown. The plan proposes two accesses and 4 parallel parking spots. Holien indicated that the applicant has met minimum landscaping requirements and has provided for buffer yard landscaping that meets or exceeds ordinance minimums with the exception of a stair location at River Street. Holien commented that the City has requested a pedestrian crossing from Broadway to River Street. As the City is considering the vacation of Dayton Street, staff is requesting a pedestrian crossing. The configuration of the stairs prevents meeting of the buffer yard requirements. Holien stated that the City has asked the applicant to construct an ADA accessible ramp as part of the pedestrian access. The applicant may want to comment on that issue. Holien stated that the applicant has not submitted a sign plan. As they are not aware of signage needs at this time, a separate application review and amendment to PUD will be required. Holien illustrated the building elevations, stating that the materials are consistent with requirements and previous approvals. The applicant has also provided garage elevations which show 5 garage doors facing east River. Holien reported that the garage is served by one access. Holien stated that the building lighting consists mostly of luminaries, but the City has requested additional lighting at the pedestrian crossing. 20 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 The City Engineer and WSB have reviewed the application plans and provided comments. Staff and the applicant reviewed those comments in a staff meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD and the applicant is aware of the conditions outlined in the staff report. Hilgart stated that the report indicated that the side setback for the district is required to be at 20 feet. The plan proposes it at 10 feet. Holien stated that the 10 foot setback at the clinic is an internal property line setback and is appropriate. Dragsten clarified that the setback is between buildings. Dragsten asked if the buildings were not going to be connected. Holien noted connection points, and stated that the hospital and clinic are not completely connected. Voight asked if the parking requirements include the current clinic. Holien stated that the 273 required are for the new clinic only. The parking for the rest of the site is sufficient at this time and noted parking arrangements with the school and Mississippi Shores. Vought asked if those parking facilities are used for overflow. Holien replied that would be a question for the applicant. Spartz asked if there has been any consideration of a walkway for Broadway. Holien answered that there is a crosswalk in place across Broadway. Spartz clarified that there is no discussion about crossing over Broadway. Holien confirmed. Dragsten stated that when the cross easement comes to an end, the applicant would be short of parking. Dragsten asked if there is an expiration to the agreement. Holien stated that she doesn't believe there is an expiration date. Grittman noted that the parking arrangement would be part of the PUD agreement between the school and hospital. Dragsten asked what happens if the school doesn't want the agreement. Grittman stated that the hospital would need to amend their PUD. Stumpf asked if it is common to vacate streets and leave an access point. Grittman stated that the access points are already there and that there is no crossing through the parking lot from Broadway to River Street. O'Neill noted the pedestrian access that is to be provided across the parking area. Dragsten stated that he thought that in the concept stage PUD, they had proposed to close everything on Broadway, enter where lights are and then access to west bound traffic only from Broadway. Grittman stated that he believes that there is a median, so it is right in right out only. Drasgten asked about the two parcels on Hart Boulevard that the hospital is seeking to acquire. Holien stated that the applicant is requesting to purchase those properties. Parcel sketches have been provided. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. 21 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 Barb Schwientek, Administrator for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, addressed the Commission and introduced Linda Dircks, administrator of the Monticello Clinic, Bob Verstraete with BWBR Architects, Matt Swenson with Landform Engineering and Dean Williamson with Frauenshuh Companies. Schwientek stated that the parking agreement is reciprocal with the school. She indicated that the reason they are asking for the right in -right out, is that when the helicopter is positioned, they do not allow traffic on Hart. She stated that while the helicopter isn't there a long time, the area is controlled during that time. Schwientek stated that they do recognize the need for the pedestrian crossway. She indicated that it is not a ramp, and that they do have some discussions on the table on whether they will accept liability. She indicated that they are concerned about liability during wintertime. Matt Swenson, Landform Engineering, explained that regarding the ADA access, they are not allowed to have 8% slope except indoors. So, the plan is for a 5% slop sidewalk. He indicated that the have sent a concept to client and City to determine whether it is feasible. Dragsten asked if there is no other connection between River and Broadway. Swenson stated that right now there is no connection except Dayton Street, which isn't ADA compliant. Schwientek stated that internally they can get to River. Grittman clarified that the intent is to provide a public access. Staff is working with the applicant on that item and that the City attorney has some ideas on limiting the liability. Gabler asked BWBR if they would have the project construction on their web cam so that people can monitor the process. Verstraete stated that they are debating the merits; it is a possibility, but they don't have an answer at this time. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that he would like to see if they would look at walkway. Schwientek noted that the hospital district paid for the stoplight. O'Neill stated that the City just applied for ISTEA funds for pathway improvements. There were questions on where pedestrian crossings should be. Perhaps this would be a location for next round. Dragsten asked about the helipad and right in -right out condition. He inquired if there are plans for helipad to be moved with growth. Schwientek stated that not at this time, as right now it is accessible to emergency in the best way possible. Dragsten asked if there is much left for future phases. Schwientek stated that they plan on a parking ramp and that there are two parcels of property that are still 22 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 available, that they are interested in purchasing. Schwientek referenced possible extension along East Broadway. Dragsten asked about the maintenance garage and the variance requested. Schwientek stated that the variance isn't needed with the current plan. Dragsten inquired if the intent is still not to put additional traffic on River Street. Schwientek stated that the only additional traffic will be from the parallel parking stalls reserved for cancer patients. Dragsten noted that it will be important to keep things off of River Street. Schwientek noted that they had met with River Street residents, and they do not object to the parking. Dragsten just wanted to confirm that traffic should stay off River Street. Dragsten confirmed that they would need a change in the PUD to expand. Staff confirmed. Dragsten asked if the River Street garage is just for storage and not for on -duty ambulances. Schwientek stated that they are not housing ambulances. They will be looking in the future at locating those off -site. Dragsten asked if Schwientek was familiar with Exhibit Z. She indicated that she is and has no problem meeting the conditions with exception to providing the sidewalk ramps. Dragsten stated that that item would be worked out with City versus a condition. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, CG TO APPROVE, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE PZM DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. In lieu of vacating River Street, the City shall require that the applicant sign a license agreement holding the City harmless against any liabilities associated with the proposed drive aisle constructed within the City's right-of-way. 2. Drainage and utility easements shall be placed over all vacated Hart Boulevard right-of-way areas 3. An alternate paving material shall be used through the parking lot to delineate the pedestrian crossing. 1. T'. an ADA ;jsessible-pedes#ian ram grit.': landau the pfflpesed stak—miy in the green spaee between the g lot arA East Rivef Stfeet. 5. The applicant shall provide additional shrubs on the west side of the clinic building to screen the parallel parking stalls from the adjacent residential use. 6. The total number of plant units on the site shall not be decreased with the construction of the required pedestrian ramp. 23 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01 /07 7. Additional lighting shall be required adjacent to the proposed pedestrian crossing. Said lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent residential properties or the River Street right-of- way. 8. Any wall pack lighting shall be full cutoff lighting. 9. Any signage proposed for the site in the future shall require a separate application and an amendment to the PUD. 10. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of engineering staff, as outlined in the memo from Bruce Westby dated April 20, 2007 and the memo from WSB dated April 23, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Concept Staize Planned Unit Development for a 7.9 acre proposed commercial development. Applicant: Mike Schneider/251 Partnership Planner Holien reviewed the staff report. Holien explained that the development area proposed is within the Orderly Annexation Area, and the applicant will be required to submit an application for annexation after receiving approval on a preliminary plat. Holien described the proposed concept plan. The applicant is proposing a 50 room hotel, a 5000 square foot restaurant, and 3 office buildings. The concept plan demonstrates use of MnDOT property for significant ponding and parking needs. Holien reported that upon approval of any concept PUD, additional approvals are required and have been listed in the report. Holien stated that due to the nature of the proposed land uses, a B-3 land use would be most appropriate. Due to the size of the site, setbacks requirements could be met, but the applicant has indicated a variance would be requested for one of the buildings. Holien stated that the current concept plan illustrates 130 parking stalls on land not owned by the applicant. Staff has talked to the applicant about options regarding the plan and property control. Pending a new application and configuration, staff recommends tabling. Drasgten commented that it will be interesting to see how the applicant will get all that is proposed on the site. Stumpf asked what portion of County Highway 75 the City has taken back. O'Neill commented that currently the state is holding all of that property. Mike Schneider, applicant and property owner, addressed the Commission. Schneider stated that they had decided to show the whole concept, fully realizing that they couldn't build buildings on the highway, but wanting to show what the 24 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/01/07 end result would be. Schneider distributed a new sketch plan illustrating only the is property under his control. Dragsten asked about the proximity to I-94. Schumann noted that the City is taking an active role in aiding the applicant in acquiring the property in order to maintain tree line and develop the plan as presented. Dragsten asked the applicant to come back with schematics and a little bit about quality of materials. Dragsten asked whether the properties would be leased or owned. Schneider stated hat it depends on the end user. Schumann noted that full architectural and site details are required at development stage. Dragsten replied that it would be nice to have preliminary details, if available, in the packet. Anderson addressed the Commission on a related signage item. Anderson noted that the applicant has two trailers on the site with signage. This is not permissible by either County or City regulations. Anderson reported that the City has contacted County Planner Salkowski regarding this. The County has sent a notice of violation. The applicant has 15 days to remove the signage. Anderson stated that he would like the Planning Commission to encourage the applicant to remove them as soon as possible. Anderson stated that via City ordinance, the signage allowed would be less than this. O'Neill stated that we wouldn't be so tough on this, except that we have a project provision for this type of development signage. is Schneider stated to the Commission that he will remove the signs. Schneider stated that he was told that as it wasn't in the City, it was not a staff concern. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO RESUBMIT A CONCEPT PLAN LIMITING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA TO LAND UNDER THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AREA, INCLUDING AREA OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE PHASES OF THE PROJECT, AND TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF SIGNAGE AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. ` e gela Schumann 25