Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-05-2007MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 51h, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff Present: 1. Call to order. Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, 011ie Koropchak, Angela Schumann, and Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order. Chairman Dragsten declared a quorum and noted the absence of Commissioners Gabler and Hilgart. 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of Mav 1 st, 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 1ST, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Spartz added the following as item 14: Consideration to reschedule the regular July Planning Commission meeting date. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for the proposed Villas at Elm. Applicant: UP Development Planner Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that there are currently nuisance issues on the property proposed for development. Staff has discussed these issues and recommends that the Commission table action on the extension request for 30 days, and request that the applicant work with the property owner to clean up the nuisance Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 conditions. Grittman stated that the recommendation would be to table to the next regular 40 meeting, when a follow-up report can be provided. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VILLAS AT ELM FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS, TO REQUIRE THAT NUISANCE ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BE ADDRESSED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat for the proposed Hidden Forest. Applicant: Monticello 39, Inc. Commissioner Spartz inquired if the adjacent proposed development of Niagara Falls is required to be annexed for this project to move forward. Planner Grittman indicated that it is actually Hidden Forest that needs to come first. Dragsten noted that their plat deadline must also be approaching. Grittman responded that the preliminary plat for that item was approved a bit later. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 7TH, 2005 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIDDEN FOREST TO JUNE 7TH, 2008, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED BELOW: a. A new final plat must be submitted for review and approval by June 26`h, 2008. b. Finance plans discussed in relationship to this project will need to be re-evaluated prior to any final plat consideration. c. The applicant shall supply all required easements for onsite drainage and for drainage to the Mississippi River. d. The applicant is required to pay the expenses associated with the review of the preliminary plat, which total $37,682.89. Payment of these funds is required by January 1, 2008, or the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. These expenses exceed the initial amount on deposit for preliminary plat review. Until the time that the City receives payment to cover expenses, no further review of any portion of the project will commence. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 7. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a proposed commercial development. Applicant: 251 Partnership_ /Mike Schneider Prior to the planner's report, the applicant distributed additional information to the Commissioners. Planner Holien presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant had presented a concept plan during the last Commission meeting which included property not under 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 their control. As such, staff and the Commission continued the item, allowing the applicant to revise their plan. The applicant has now provided a plan that has taken all of the property previously shown in the concept plan and shown it as a sketch plan. The concept plan requested for approval now includes only that property under the applicant's control. Holien explained that the Commission had also requested that the applicant provide information describing the buildings. Holien stated that the proposal is for a mixed use commercial site. She stated that upon approval of any concept stage plan, the applicant must submit an application for development stage PUD, a preliminary plat, and request for annexation, as this property is outside of the City in the Orderly Annexation Area. Holien reported that due to the nature of the proposal, a B-3 zoning district appears to be most appropriate. The setbacks have been calculated under that zoning designation. Holien noted that the submitted plan was not to scale, and that all setbacks have been estimated. She indicated that for the most part, it appears that all building setbacks can be met. Once staff has an opportunity to review a plan to scale, setbacks can be verified. Holien stated that perimeter curb barriers are required to be no closer than 11.5' to the property line. She indicated that portions of the curb appear to be encroaching onto the setback, which when adjusted, will result in loss of multiple parking spaces. She stated that the revised plan should meet setbacks. Holien stated that access is proposed from two points and that dimensions of internal drive are required to be 24'. The engineer is requesting that the applicant revise the is access near Meadow Oak Drive, and has also commented that turn lanes may required. uired. q Regarding building design, the applicant has not supplied any elevations, which the Commission Chair did ask for at the May meeting. Holien noted that the subject site contains dense tree coverage, which staff recommends to be preserved. Holien stated that the site's current configuration will not allow preservations of these trees. Staff would also like a preservation plan, as the trees serve both an aesthetics and noise control purpose. Holien reported that regarding the request, staff does not recommend approval based on inadequate information and other items as noted in the staff report. Holien stated that in relationship to the non -conforming signs on the property, the signs have been removed as of the afternoon of this Commission meeting. Voight asked if the building proposed in the concept plan is a 12,000 single story or 10,000 single -story. Holien confirmed the building to be a 10,000 single story unit. Holien stated that staff has not seen the material passed out this evening, only that which is in the packets. 9 Dragsten asked if it is realistic to have a tree preservation plan with a commercial layout. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 O'Neill responded that as noted earlier, staff and the applicant are working with MNDoT, with the thought that the development can be pushed forward to save additional trees along the interstate. O'Neill stated that the plan is not intended to increase developable area, but increase the ability to provide a screen. O'Neill stated that City Engineer Bruce Westby has been working with MNDoT, although he is not sure about a timeframe. Schneider indicated that he has had contact with Jamie Huckby at MNDoT as far as construction. He stated that he had talked with them today about possibly acquiring land on west end, because MNDoT will need to acquire some land to make a six lane bridge. Schneider said that Huckby had indicated that they are working on the plans right now. Schneider reported that as far as County 75, when MNDoT determines what is needed, that will determine if and when they will vacate the old freeway entrance. Schneider stated that this piece of property is in the township. It is zoned agricultural. He noted that there is no description in comprehensive plan about use. In this concept plan, he commented that they are trying to show what they would like to do, without doing all of the final engineering, because the tenants and occupants may have some changing requests as they go. Schneider stated that they have gone through considerable expense to get some indication of approval. Schneider stated that they need to get some direction. The applicant's engineer, Gary D'Heilly, stated that it is their intent to not request any variances at all. In fact, they chose to remove building four because of possible conflict with right of way. D'Heilly referred to the potential proposed setbacks sobeing larger than required. • Dragsten stated that a building schematic is important. Although the Commission doesn't get too detailed, the Commission is looking at where they are going to sit in terms of visibility for the community. Dragsten stated that when the Commission only gets them during the meeting, it is frustrating. Dragsten referred to the functionality of the site, confirming that for concept stage, the Commission is only looking at three buildings. Spartz inquired if the Commission has previously approved something on this site. Staff confirmed that the Commission had not. As far as concept stage, Spartz reiterated the City's concerns and stated that he is also concerned about these items. Spartz referred to signs only being removed that afternoon, which illustrates his frustration. As this is concept stage, Spartz stated that he doesn't see that there is a problem with these three buildings. He noted that a lot of trees have been removed from the site already and that saving any existing trees would be a good thing. Voight stated that he has similar sentiments as Commissioner Spartz. He indicated that as a concept, he thinks this would be a good spot for what is proposed. However, he expressed frustration with the signs and lack of getting materials. 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 • Stumpf asked where the solution came from for a 6-lane bridge. Schneider responded that MNDoT had reported that to him during his appointment regarding the land acquisition. Stumpf asked if the City is in negotations for a 6-lane bridge. O'Neill stated that the City has been reacting to what MNDoT wants to do with that bridge for many years. Stumpf asked about a construction timeline. O'Neill replied that it would depend on the bonding bill passing. Stumpf stated that the plans for a 6-lane bridge surprise him in regard to things moving forward that quickly. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Schumann requested copies of what was distributed by the applicant for the record. Grittman stated that whatever action the Commission takes, it would be helpful to provide direction to the applicant in order to meet expectation for items of concern. Dragsten stated that if approved, the Commission would use the general concepts outlined in the staff report, which included: • Streets • Trees • Open space • Grading & drainage • Easements • Sanitary Sewer • Curbing barrier • More detailed schematics • Setbacks Circulation Dragsten stated that the Commission seemed to agree that B-3 zoning was probably most appropriate within the PUD designation. He noted that the project needs to be a superior product. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE B-3, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND MEETS THE REVIEW ELEMENTS OF A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN AND WITHIN THE 06/05/07 STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Amendment to Planned Unit Develop_ ment for 0 expansion of Open and Outdoor Storage Applicant: Sunnv Fresh Foods Planner Holien presented the staff report, stating that Sunny Fresh Foods is seeking an amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of open and outdoor storage on their site. The proposal includes the addition of 8 liquid process silos, which replace some existing tanks on site. Holien stated that the site plan shows 5 existing silos on the north side, enclosed with a ground level screening wall. The 8 silos are proposed to contain a liquid egg product. No changes to signage are proposed. Holien explained that the ordinance outlines criteria that the storage be screened from the public right of way. However, the building will screen some of the view and any screening walls would not screen from adjacent properties. Staff believes that any attempt to screen would be more obtrusive than the storage itself. Holien referred to the lighting, which is located on the catwalks for connecting silos. Holien stated that the applicant has indicated that they intend to meet lighting standards. Holien reported that staff is recommending approval of the request, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. She noted that DAT had reviewed the request and has recommended approval, with the recommendation that staff discuss expansion plans with Sunny Fresh. She stated that staff will be setting up a meeting in that regard. Holien commented that the IDC has also discussed the request and recommended approval of the CUP. I* Holien stated that the applicant has clarified the final height ght of the silos. Stumpf stated that he had a good idea of where they will be, but asked the applicant to clarify. Applicants Don Roberts and Steve Grinnell, representing Sunny Fresh, addressed the Commission and stated that they can answer any questions or concerns. Roberts indicated that the proposal includes silos along 4t' street, between NAPA and their building, which will be accessed from the existing building. There will be five located there. The other three could be viewed north from the community center. Roberts stated that currently, one silo is visible. Roberts indicated that there are currently three existing silos that will be removed and replaced. Stumpf confirmed that these are new construction and asked for relationship to buildings now. Roberts stated that current height of the building is probably 60'. This will be lower than that. Dragsten asked if Sunny Fresh could illustrate locations on the map. Grinnell pointed out locations of new silos. Dragsten asked which will be removed. Grinnell clarified. Dragsten asked how tall the tallest building is. Roberts replied that it is probably 4 stories or 60 feet in height, which is the old drying tower. That would be visible looking from Walnut to the middle of the old building. Dragsten sought confirmation that the maximum silo height is 41'8". Grinnell responded that the guardrail around top brings the silo height to 44'3/4". Dragsten asked about a 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 construction timeframe. Roberts replied that they would like to be under construction by Is the end of June and into July. Dragsten also asked about color. Roberts responded that Y g p the silos are purchased as white; as a food business white has an important perception. He stated that they will blend with what is there. Voight asked if there is a security light at the top of the silos. Roberts stated that they do have lighting around perimeter of building. Voight clarified that safety lighting will only be turned on when necessary. Roberts confirmed. Spartz asked about the advantages of the new silos. Roberts stated that the new are more efficient and hold more egg product. Dragsten asked Sunny Fresh representatives if they are familiar with Exhibit Z. Roberts confirmed they will meet conditions. Stumpf asked if there is a reason why the silos aren't centralized. Roberts answered that part of the reason is related to the age of the building and its limitations. More importantly, the building is separated between pasteurized and non -pasteurized areas. They are kept in separate tanks in separate sides of the buildings. Dragsten inquired if the interior of Sunny Fresh's production area is relatively modern. Roberts stated that it is. Various areas of the facility have been remodeled as the intent is to keep the facility to date. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL TERMS OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SUNNY FRESH FOODS, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant shall verify the actual height of the proposed silos. 2. All lighting proposed for the site shall be in compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 9. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Simple Subdivision. Rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to PS (Public/Semi-Public). Amendment to Planned Unit Develop_ ment, and Variance to signage height and area requirements. Applicant: St. Benedict's Senior Care Facilitv/CentraCare. St. Henry's Catholic Church and Home Depot, Inc. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien pointed out the location of the proposed sign. She indicated that the previous sign was displaced with the realignment of 7th Street. She noted that the required approvals to accommodate the new sign proposed include a simple subdivision, amendment to PUD to add the newly subdivided parcel to the existing to St. Henry's property, rezoning of the parcel, a variance for area, a variance for setback, and rezoning. Holien stated that the subject site is owned by Home Depot as part of Lot 1, Block 2 of Union Crossings. St. Henry's owns land to the west. St. Henry's and St. Benedict's are part of the same Planned Unit Development. There is a large drainage pond on the west side of the access drive to St. Benedict's. Holien explained that the site on east was chosen by the applicant due to placement and safety issues associated with the west side, which is owned by St. Henry's. The access drive to St. Ben's is located partially on St. Henry's and Home Depot. The request places the entire driveway on St. Henry's property and accommodates the proposed sign. Holien illustrated the proposed sign. The applicant is entitled to a 50 square foot sign; the proposed sign is nearly twice the size. Holien stated that the property on which the sign is proposed to be located is zoned B-4, and needs to be rezoned to PS, consistent with the balance of the PUD. The setback for sideyard is 5', and the sign is proposed to be located at 3'. Therefore, a variance is required for encroachment into the setback area. Regarding the simple subdivision, the applicant is working with Home Depot to subdivide the parcel which can then be combined with St. Henry's. Both actions can be accomplished with the simple subdivision. Holien commented that the PUD amendment is required to allow the off -site sign, the addition of land to the PUD, and the inclusion of the sign in the overall PUD plan. Holien referenced the variance to setback, stating that a hardship was created with realignment of Id' Street. However, she reported that staff does not recommend approval of the variance for the size of the sign, as it is believed that the applicant can make reasonable use of their property with allowed signage size. The ordinance allowance of 50 square feet would put a sign in line with the existing St. Henry's sign, which is approximately 32 square feet, with an 11 square foot message. Holien stated that staff does recommend approval of other processes, subject to the conditions noted. Dragsten asked about the size of their current sign. Holien responded that the proposed sign is much larger than the previous sign. The original sign is more akin to a directional sign. Voight asked about the sign that is already there. Holien replied that it is the original sign. Grrittman noted that they didn't move the sign, 7th Street moved. Robin Theis, representative for Centracare/St. Benedict's, gave a brief history of the St. Benedict's organization. They provide a wide range of housing and health care options and provide services for over 500 seniors, both in St. Cloud and Monticello. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Theis stated that they feel that the sign proposed is needed for a number of reasons. Theis noted that at the time St. Ben's was built, the road was a dead-end and St. Benedict's was the only thing there. However, due to the realignment and new retail development, it is no longer a dead-end. Theis referred to a prepared slide presentation. Theis stated that their driveway is adjacent to Home Depot, for whom the zoning designation is business. She commented that the surroundings of a commercial environment make it hard to see their facility, as part of their building is also hidden by St. Henry's. Theis said that a sign of a smaller size than proposed would be hidden by surroundings. She reported that the sign is consistent with all of CentraCare's signs, and is the same sign as what is located at the St. Cloud facility. Theis explained that the type and size have been studied in relationship to the senior population. Theis presented a slide, showing that the St. Benedict's entrance is on a curve of a road, and that people are missing the turn. Theis also suggested that as the Home Depot landscaping matures, it will be difficult to see a smaller sign. In addition to the St. Benedict's tenants, Home Depot's truck drivers are using their drive. If they are not able to turn around, they are running over curbs and landscaping. Theis illustrated images illustrating damage caused by truck turn-arounds. Voight confirmed that the images showed damage caused by trucks going to Home Depot. Theis stated that the proposed sign is like a mailbox, as it is not only for tenants, but also for guests. Theis showed a computer enhanced image of the sign proposed on the property. ! Dragsten noted that for Ryan's development the PUD was allowed to have a larger sign because they had one sign rather than several signs. Stumpf asked, being that there are two separate entities at St. Benedict's, would they be allowed to have separate signs, one for each entity. Grittman stated that typically not; St. Benedict's is a single project. Grittman stated that staff doesn't have a problem with the sign content; staff s contention is that it should meet requirements. Stumpf stated that he thinks the photograph of St. Henry's illustrates that and that he agrees with their points, but believes the sign should meet the requirements. Richard Horan, resident of St. Benedict's, addressed the Commission. Horan stated that he has observed that there are a lot of large vehicles using the access drive, both day and evening. He commented that they even go around the back and need to back out. Horan stated that when they back out, it is a serious problem. He said that he has also seen cars trying to get around trucks. Horan explained that there is nothing better for a driver than landmarks or signs that can be seen at a distance away in order to prepare for a turn. He noted that alignment also requires them to be turning on a curve. Horan read a letter of support from St. Benedict's residents that stated "We, as residents of St. Benedict's, request that the sign be located at end of the driveway at Home Depot. The sign height and size is important to guests and visitors. Since we now live next to a mall environment, there is a need to clearly mark where we live and to prevent semis from damaging lawn and landscaping, and to prevent accidents." 9 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Dragsten asked if trucks are coming from 7th Street. Horan confirmed. He stated that he g g has seen trucks with trailers go through the lawn. Theis mentioned that Home Depot does not hire trucks directly. Instead, their vendors hire the trucks. Therefore, Home Depot doesn't know who is coming and there is no way to notify them of the access conditions. Theis noted that the two St. Ben's facilities do have separate addresses. Dragsten suggested that in relationship to the trucks coming in, perhaps they could work with Home Depot to get a sign that reads "private drive". Spartz stated that part of the problem is that there is no sign there at all; he indicated that he isn't sure that a bigger sign is the answer. He stated that "No truck signage" might be appropriate. Theis responded that they have their own delivery trucks, so they would prefer not to post such signage. Dragsten agreed that that a larger sign may not correct the problem. Voight asked about the memo of understanding, which references that the sign is limited only to St. Benedict's use. Grittman replied that condition is required by Home Depot in order to eliminate the possibility of the sign being used in a commercial capacity. Voight stated that while he thinks St. Benedict's definitely needs a sign, he doesn't know if a larger sign is needed. Voight inquired about what the applicant plans to do with the old sign. Theis stated that they planned to leave the sign and put in a welcome message. Dragsten noted that the Commission has three decisions related to the requests. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION, REZONING, AND AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PS DISTRICT AND THE EXISTING PUD. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Dragsten commented that in relationship to the second decision, it seems that there is a hardship, as the applicant has no control over the road relocation. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP EXISTS. • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 4kIn reviewing the third decision, Spartz restated that he doesn't know that a bigger sign will make a difference. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIGN IN EXCESS OF 50 SQUARE FEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP DOES NOT EXIST. Voight asked if the Commission could put a stipulation of a certain square footage, as he indicated that he would hate let them do something less and then realize they need a bigger sign. Grittman responded that in general, he believes the 50' to be appropriate. He stated that it sounds like the biggest problem is simply not having the sign. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 10. 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-1A (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business). (South Side of East Chelsea Road), Applicant: Mills Properties Inc. Planner Grittman presented the staff report, noting that the item had been tabled from the is meeting. Grittman indicated that this divergent request has created a number of previous g q issues and staff opinions. He stated that staff did not make a specific recommendation, but prepared findings of fact for the Commission for either decision. He explained that this decision is related to land use. Grittman stated that the request for comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for the 2.5 acre parcel is a separate item, and that the next Tuesday, a separate public hearing for a preliminary plat and series of conditional use permits would be held. f Grittman reviewed the last meeting, stating that the Commission heard public testimony from neighboring industrial property owners, much of it negative, but also some positive. The City's Economic Development Director addressed the differences between the land use designation as related to taxation and wages. The applicant addressed the Commission and noted the impacts of the new interchange on the surrounding property. The current property owner of the subject site also addressed the Commission. Grittman explained that the motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning failed. The motion to deny was discussed, made, and then withdrawn without a vote. Subsequently, a motion to table was approved unanimously by the Commission. Grittman noted that the Planning Commission did close the public hearing. Grittman summarized the exhibits included in the agenda packets, stating that in summary, the Commission is asked to consider the redesignation of the property from industrial to commercial and rezoning from I-lA to B-4. 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Spartz asked about a timeframe for construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge. Grittman is responded that while there is no specific timeframe, it is included in the City's transportation plan. The City needs to find funding for the project. O'Neill added that the timeline for construction is set by impacts at the CSAH 18 intersection with 7`h Street. When that area is congested, MNDoT will pressure they City to construct the bridge. Spartz referred to the staff report, noting the grading of different roads from A to F. Grittman clarified that designation refers to level of service as identified in the EAW. Spartz asked what grade School Boulevard is. Grittman explained that the level of service was included as part of the EAW and was specifically researched as related to this project. Spartz asked if the reconstruction of Chelsea was intended to ease traffic off of School Boulevard. Grittman replied that it is to improve the flow of traffic as part of the interchange project and to aid Chelsea as a major east -west collector route. School Boulevard was actually developed to ease traffic on Chelsea, although School carries much more residential traffic. Spartz inquired if the land remains commercial if it is land is rezoned to commercial and the project does not move forward. Grittman confirmed that the zoning designation would remain commercial in that case. Dragsten asked if the EAW showed any major concerns. Stumpf noted that the EAW is within its 30 day review window by other agencies. O'Neill asked Grittman to discuss the option of zoning to a B-4 PUD. Grittman responded that there was some discussion, about how the property would be developed if rezoned. One of the options is to rezone to a PUD district. He stated that the current code doesn't allow for PUD districts, so the City would need to amend the code. In such case, any use for the site would be required to go through the PUD process, providing impacts and design detail. It was offered as an option, so that if Mills did not complete their project, the City would still have more site control than if it were a straight B-4. Any use on that site would be required to come in under a PUD. O'Neill asked how to initiate the process, as the applicant has not applied for a PUD designation or amendment. Grittman stated that the City has the opportunity to apply on its own for amendment to the district and to initiate the rezoning. Grittman stated that the Chief Zoning Official, the Planning Commission and the City Council are approved to initiate that action. Dragsten asked if the Commissioners wanted to reopen the public hearing. Spartz noted that people had come to address the issue. Dragsten agreed, stating that the hearing would be for additional information only. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Don Tomann, owner of UMC at 500 Chelsea Road, addressed the Commission. Tomann stated that the only thing he wanted to add was that his intent through this whole process 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 • was not to sway the decision, as it's a difficult decision. Tomann commented that when you fall in love with a car, the salesman has the upper hand, and you have to be willing to walk away. Tomann stated that he has nothing personal against Mills Fleet Farm, or against any individual or anyone who works for or with City. He commented that he thinks it would be an asset to have the business, but the question comes down to the right spot, to previous commitments, and to what is already in the area. He stated that he is trying to give the Commission perspective. In the letter presented to the Commission, he stated that he was requesting some discussion, and instead got a couple of emailed responses that seemed rather definitive. Tomann remarked that it seems as if the whole project is going so fast, the City is not taking time to examine the impacts. Tomann referred to the St. Ben's sign issue, citing it as an example of a consequence on something that wasn't communicated properly. He stated that the bridge created the opportunity, but that doesn't stop us from communicating better today and seeing that everyone gets their questions answered. Tomann explained that he realizes this is a tough decision for both the Commission and Council. Tomann stated that he wanted to add a few points on jobs. He indicated that he thinks he made his point on how jobs make a community in the long term. He stated that he heard the personal pleas from the current land owner about what they've done for the City. Tomann said that the inability to sell the property shouldn't impact this decision. He stated that he feels that there is a lot of discussion needed on what hardships are we creating that can't be answered today. If they are discussed now, maybe there could be a response. Tomann stated that he didn't have a chance to see the response letter and doesn't know what hardships will be created. Tomann stated that for example, surveyors were out surveying trees on the west side of his property. They didn't ask permission to come on the property. Tomann stated that they drove spikes into his driveway without permission. He reported that the surveyors had said they worked for Mills and that Mills didn't want to put up more trees. Tomann suggested that there continues to be more miscommunications. Tomann inquired that if this is the beginning of it, where are his rights. Tomann stated that he really thinks that the City needs to get everybody involved. The City needs to back away from the decision, whether it is the road improvements or the rezoning, and get a forum together. Tomann stated that he is sure landowners would have been happy to take part in that process. Tomann requested that the Commission find out what's best for the City. Bruce Buxton addressed the Planning Commission, representing Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. Buxton reported that Stu Mills, one of the owners of Mills Fleet Farm, is here because he is interested in this process. Buxton stated that on behalf of his company and Mills, he apologizes to Mr. Tomann and UMC if work was done outside of the property line and ROW. Buxton commented that the surveying was a City requirement, that the ordinance requires all details of topography 200' beyond the boundaries of the subject property. Staff insisted that they do that. Buxton stated that Mills did not and would never say that it would not want to provide more trees. 13 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Buxton stated that the Commission has a narrative that outlines many things. One thing not discussed are the benefits to the City. This is a commercial project and obviously a very large facility. Buxton stated that it will add rather significantly to the tax base of the City. Buxton commented that property owner Shawn Weinand has owned and made an effort to market this property for some 20 years, with no interested buyers other than UMC and Twin City Die Casting. The only reason Mills is looking at this site is because of the interchange. As a retailer, there is no job zone, no TIF, no financial support. That is no offense to any industrial business. Buxton referred to information prepared from Owatonna. He stated that in Owatonna, Mills Fleet Farm has a facility that is 5 years old. Mills took a large parcel of land, which had a building on it. That parcel was rezoned to commercial. It was owned by Owatonna Tool and SPX. The building is 180,000 sq. ft. The building was built with industrial revenue bonds and TIF. When the TIF ended and revenue bonds ended, the industrial user moved and left the building sitting empty until Mills came in. Buxton commented that the Commission has aerials of the Owatonna area. It is also near an interstate interchange near and among mixed uses. The Commission also has a synopsis of discussions staff has had with Owatonna City staff. Buxton stated that he brings up Owatonna to advise the Commission and to note that in their opinion, there has been no harm to any of the other industrial businesses in that area. Buxton stated that third, he thinks this is a quality project. He commented that it would be a substantial building with quality materials, essentially the same that UMC is built out of. The buildingwill be owner occupied from here on out. Buxton stated that he is p not a developer, but rather works for the owner, who will be here a long time. Buxton reported that they expect to have 200 employees and opportunities for young people. Admittedly, he stated that they are not paying the same wages as UMC or TCDC, but that they do offer competitive wages. Buxton stated that one of issues referenced was security. Buxton said that Stuart Mills puts a lot of emphasis on security, with cameras and video recording to protect his property, its employees and customers. Mill is very specific about how he works with the police department for safety and security. Buxton stated that hopefully, there are enough benefits that the Commission can see. They are compatible. They offer benefit to the City. Buxton thanked the Commission for their time, and apologized again to UMC. Dragsten asked how long Mills has been in Owatonna. Buxton replied it was about five years. The Owatonna information was provided because the question has been asked about other similar locations. Dragsten asked if Buxton knew how much industrial land is currently available. Buxton suggested that about 150 acres was available and a lot more taken. Buxton referred to the aerial of Owatonna, noting the Mills location. He stated that outside of Target and a hotel, all other buildings in the area are industrial. He stated that at the next interchange north are Walmart and Lowes. 14 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Voight stated that the Commission had talked at the May 1' meeting about losing some freeway exposure once the north side was built up. Voight asked Buxton's opinion of that, despite the next request related to the north side. Buxton stated that they expect those to be smaller buildings, with smaller uses. When built up, Buxton stated that they would already be established and people will know where to find us. Voight commented that they had said that they looked at other locations. Buxton confirmed, stating that they have been looking at Monticello and surrounding area all the way to Buffalo. Buxton reported that they had rejected this site a couple of years ago, but the interchange and resulting commercial on the north side of the interstate changed the whole dynamic. Grittman explained that he had a couple of comments. In terms of the requirement for survey data, the purpose of that requirement is to ensure that any drainage is being handled properly, and so that the City knows how it is being handled. Dragsten noted that requirement is typical anywhere. Grittman referenced the timing question for this request. He reported that under state statute, the City has 120 days to consider these applications. The City needs to complete City action by the end of June. Dragsten noted that the applicant can request an extension. Tomann again spoke to the Commission. He stated that he finds it interesting that City staff is putting emphasis around finding success stories. If the City is going to put tax dollars to support Mills, they should also find an example where it didn't work. Tomann suggested that an interview of each of the individual business owners is also needed. Tomann commented that he has a 3 year old building, and the Commission needs to think about that. SPX is not a family owned business, they are a corporation, and they close down plants all over the US. Tomann stated that the comparison is not apples to apples. Tomann suggested that the Commission listen to the professionals hired by the city. HKGi, the City's comprehensive plan consultant, has publicly stated that it isn't a good situation. Rusty Fifield's opinion was that he wouldn't have a mixed area here. So, the comparison may not be valid. Tomann recommended that a discussion with two business that are less than 7 years old in the neighborhood. Dragsten noted that the Commission had requested comparisons. Tomann stated that it seems that staff are working to promote Mills Fleet Farm. Dragsten stated that he can guarantee that the staff report is not swayed one way or the other. He noted that the Commission took two hours of public comment to let everyone speak. There was a lot of information, not to mention the additional information provided with this second hearing. Dragsten stated that this decision is not something that is taken lightly. Dragsten stated that it is important that Tomann understand that. Tomann stated that he understands that it could be debated this for months on end. Dragsten agreed and stated that he thinks if there was nothing out there, the decision would be much easier, but the mix of uses makes it quite a bit different. 15 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Shawn Weinand, property owner, addressed the Commission. Weinand apologized if the UMC property was infringed on and stated that all he can do is apologize. Weinand p p Y g � stated that he thinks the point Buxton is making is that they are willing to invest millions of dollars in the City with no risk to the City, without them walking away. Weinand stated that he is very involved with the Brainerd community. He indicated that he recently completed a 3 -year project in Brainerd. Out of all the subcontractors used, over half have worked for Mills at one time or another. Mills helps to train the best businessmen and subcontractors. Weinand stated that all of those people attributed their success to Mills. Weinand noted that Mills creates jobs that create skills that will carry on to future jobs. Weinand commented that the City should not let this opportunity pass by. Weinand stated that it is unfortunate that there couldn't have been more meetings. However, he noted that he had four years worth of meetings on the interchange. During that time, there were many opportunities for public input. This was not done quietly, without a lot of public knowledge. He encouraged the Commission not to miss a good opportunity. Tomann questioned whether there was plenty of opportunity over a four year period. He stated that he had asked for announcements and communications notifying the surrounding area. He indicated that nothing has been produced. Tomann stated that he doesn't believe that there was any public meeting or information. If there was a forum put together, someone made a choice not to include certain properties. There was no opportunity to participate. O'Neill explained that there was a decision earl on to assess properties that were vacant. Y p p There was a complicated but collaborative funding plan for the interchange that was put into place. The City did everything it could to finance the interchange without impacting existing industrial property owners. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township Board, addressed the Commission. Bye stated that her concern is that having been to comprehensive plan update meetings, she would be reluctant to see this decision made without the comp plan being completed. She suggested that to do it all in good faith, perhaps the City should wait until the comp plan is completed. Stuart Mills addressed the Commission as the owner of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. Mills stated that he, along with his twin brother, Henry Mills, are owners of Mills Fleet Farm, based out of Brainerd. Mills thanked the Commission and staff for their time. Mills stated that they want to be part of the community. Mills stated that he believes it is important for the Commission to get a feeling of what Mills stands for. He said that honesty and integrity have been the motto of the company, which was started by their father. Mills explained that when he and his brother had gotten out of the Korean War, they started the Brainerd Mills store, which was 4.000 square feet, and went from there. Mills indicated that they have never asked anyone for any help and feel they have been good citizens. s 16 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 • Monticello is a good spot, Mills stated. He has traveled by Monticello for more than 80 Years. He suggested that they feel they would be good for the surrounding community. He noted that they had spent a lot of time looking at Monticello. Other communities have been interested, but Mills has not been interested in those locations. He indicated that they want to be in Monticello. The location chosen was not an accident. It was based on access. Mills thanked the Commission once more. Dragsten stated that any decision on the zoning would not be a reflection on Mills in any way. The issues are still a mix of use, traffic, and market value. Dragsten stated that he thinks the company is good for the City as it does bring another anchor commercial use to the City. He noted that it might not bring higher paying jobs, although there is no guarantee on those in any case. Dragsten stated that he thinks the commercial use pressure has resulted from the interchange. Calling for and hearing no other public comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Voight stated that he is not as concerned about an industrial against commercial use issue, as he is that if this 33 acres goes commercial, then the whole north side would go commercial. It seems to be a reasonable conclusion. In that case, Voight stated that an island of industrial land would be created for Twin City Die Casting and UMC. Voight stated that concerns him. Voight commented that he doesn't think traffic will play a significant role, as he imagines that the uses will be non -conflicting. Voight conveyed that he is also concerned that the introduction of a Fleet Farm may cause the existing property owners to be unable to fully utilize their property. Spartz commented that this is not an issue with the Mils family. The story about pounding stakes was probably the first negative he has heard about Mills. He indicated that he just don't know if it is the right spot. Spartz stated that he looks at that land as a piece that takes Monticello out of being a bedroom community. He stated that he still wants Fleet Farm, just not there. In terms of traffic on Chelsea and School, he commented that he doesn't think that is a good problem. He stated that when he first got involved with the comp plan update, it was because he didn't want to see industrial up against commercial. He got involved because of mixing of uses. Spartz restated that he believes Mills is a good company, but that the location is wrong. Dragsten noted the benefit of having one user over several users on that site. Dragsten stated that he thinks there are pros and cons down the middle. 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 1, 2007 STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. 17 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Stumpf commented that it is unfortunate that there is not a full Commission present to make comments regarding the issue. Dragsten agreed, stating it is a very important issue. Stumpf stated that this is also a difficult issue. MOTION CARRIED 2-1, WITH COMMISSIONER VOIGHT IN DISSENT. Dragsten reiterated that the Commission's vote is nothing against Mills or the developer; that he thinks it comes down to mixing of uses. Dragsten asked for clarification on when this will go before the City Council. O'Neill stated that it will be reviewed on June 25th. 11. 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 (Light Industrial) to B-3 (Limited Business). (North Side of East Chelsea Road) Applicant: Mills Properties Inc. Planner Grittman presented the staff report. Grittman stated that since the City Council will not have acted on zoning on the south, the Commission needs to proceed on the request for the north, as they go forward to the Council together on June 25th. Grittman noted that the earlier decision does complicate the analytical process a bit. Grittman reported that the analysis in the staff report is similar to the south 33 acres. He stated that the cumulative traffic from the two sites is the same, as if the larger locates on the south, the traffic splits. Only the traffic pattern changes with the site being split. Grittman stated that when staff looks at this site, the bulk of the comments are the same. The pros that support the comp plan and rezoning are the same, although slightly stronger because of the direct freeway exposure. The cons discussed earlier are also similar. In support of a comp plan amendment and rezoning, Grittman stated that there is an existing mix of uses already in the area. The subject site has features that are consistent with commercial use. Grittman noted that if there were no other uses, direct exposure to freeway is very likely a factor that the City would have considered as a a strong indicator of a commercial area. Grittman commented that the Commission has reviewed surrounding land uses, although a large number as related to this north parcel are in fact vacant, or have commercial zoning. In support of retaining the current comp plan designation and zoning, the report reflects an expected increase in traffic along Chelsea, which is significant over what it would be under industrial. The reports also cites potential traffic conflicts. Grittman stated that the primary difference or distinction between the two requests is the north parcel's direct freeway exposure, which seems to argue more favorably than the south from that single aspect. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 0 Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. • Don Tomann addressed the Commission as related to this request. Tomann noted traffic concerns mentioned in the report. Tomann stated that in relationship to the assessments, Jeff O'Neill had noted that current property owners were not included. However, Tomann stated that they are impacted for road improvements on Chelsea for commercial uses. Industrial users do not need sidewalks and trees, so he would request that the City pick up the tab on those. Tomann stated that he understands that the road improvements and costs are not for the Planning Commission to decide. Tomann stated that he would keep those comments and store that for later rather than here. Calling for and hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that if the Commission was to be consistent, it would stick with zoning as is. Voight stated that for him, he recognizes that a commercial use would bring traffic, although he doesn't foresee the significant hardships because of traffic. Voight noted that his "no" vote on the previous item was symbolic because it was such a close decision for the Commission. Voight said that he is more comfortable with this request because it does have direct freeway access. He remarked that the lots are smaller, and wouldn't support a bigger retail user. Voight commented that even if the 33 acres doesn't go commercial, with all of the parcels and uses combined, you might see the same level of traffic. Voight stated that thinks this is more fitting of commercial. He indicated that if nothing was there in terms of surrounding uses, it would not be a difficult decision. He stated that he doesn't want to make changes to the comp plan that impact the way current businesses operate. However, in this area, B-2 is already present. Dragsten stated that in comp plan meetings, there was discussion specifically about this area. There really was not a consensus either way. Dragsten commented that he would see that this area would benefit the City as commercial or PUD. Dragsten asked staff about looking for a zoning designation of PUD. He inquired if they could table or make the decision contingent. Grittman responded that they could send the item forward and then call for a hearing on the PUD zoning issue. He explained that it would benefit the City Council to have the ability to act on the requests with the recommendation forthcoming later on the PUD. However, they won't be able to act on PUD recommendation. Spartz stated that he understands the comments, but wants to discuss traffic whether you take 10 acres, 3 acres, or 33 acres. Spartz inquired how it is not going to affect traffic either way. Dragsten stated his opinion that the north side would be limited to smaller retail. Dragsten also noted that there could also be small industrial businesses that would generate about the same amount of traffic. However, on the south side, one large single commercial user would seem to generate a much higher traffic volume than a single 19 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 industrial user. Spartz clarified that Dragsten believes that the two should be compared separately. The Commissioners briefly discussed whether a PUD district designation would be appropriate for the north side site. Grittman stated that the Commission could motion to call for a public hearing on a new PUD ordinance for the north side of Chelsea Road. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF CHELSEA ROAD TO FALLON AVENUE. Spartz clarified that this zoning would apply to just this area and asked why this should be different from any other piece of property. Dragsten stated that the designation would give it flexibility. Grittman stated that primary benefit is it allows City to manage what would go on the site, based on the mix of uses currently in the area. Dragsten explained this would be useful in relationship to the abutting an industrial use. Spartz stated that he is just concerned about another zoning district. Spartz stated that perhaps if there isn't a district that fits, perhaps it doesn't benefit the City. Dragsten noted that there is a B-2 District in place already on the end. O'Neill stated that the PUD district could be structured so that the B-4 uses would be taken out, but leave in district site design requirements. The Commissioners discussed other possible areas for using a PUD district and the flexibility a PUD District might give. Spartz stated that it provides another layer. Dragsten noted that perhaps it could be discussed at Tuesday's meeting. COMMISSIONER VOIGHT RESCINDED OMOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF CHELSEA ROAD TO FALLON AVENUE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE MILLS FLEET FARM MOTOR FUEL STATION AND ACCESSORY USES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Commissioner Spartz stated that he would perhaps have recommended tabling for more input from the other Commissioners. 20 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 0 MOTION CARRIED, 2-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. • 12. Public Hearinia — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. Au_ nlicant: Mielke Bros., LLC Planner Grittman presented the staff report, referencing the provided site plans and information from the staff report. Grittman stated that the Commission is reviewing the last parcel on Monticello Travel Center. The site consists of a 9,000 square foot commercial building which has exposure on all four sides. Grittman stated that the architecture supports the multiple exposures. The building is constructed primarily of EFIS and block, with awnings provided all around the building. The applicant was encouraged to provide a varying roofline, as with other projects. The building meets those standards. As a development stage PUD, the entire site relies on shared parking, access and signage. This project does include renovation of an existing sign, which provides for fewer free standing signs on that property. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing Jiffy Lube sign, adding an electronic reader board in lieu of temporary signage. Grittman reported that the applicant had requested some flexibility from landscaping standards, including concrete flower planters in lieu of overstory trees. The applicant indicates that they have had success with that design as part of the Loch Jewelers project. The only remaining point of contention relates to wall signage. There are wall signage panels on all sides, for a total of ten wall signs. The calculation that staff has used allows 5% of fagade of any building frontage. Staff has counted both Highway 25 and Cedar Street as frontages, given that this is a PUD. The building is allowed a total of 221 square feet of wall signage. The applicants show 246 square feet. Staff recommends that wall signage be reduced to meet the ordinance requirement. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval, believing the plan to be consistent with the concept PUD. Grittman stated that there are conditions and provided detail. He noted that the photometric plan should be revised to not exceed one foot candle at the property line, that wall signage should meet requirements, and added that it is recommended that the applicant add a crosswalk to the Subway restaurant as there is likely to be some pedestrian access through the site. Grittman explained that the engineers have also made some recommendations for technical changes. Finally, as related to the drive -through, a separate CUP is required. Grittman stated that it is his understanding that the engineer's requests are acceptable to the applicant. As a condition of approval, staff has also requested that the applicant provide additional information regarding tenants. The applicant has asked staff to strike that. Staff believes the site plan sufficient, and is willing to drop the requirement. 21 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Voight asked for clarification on wall signage. Grittman stated that the applicant had modified wall signage on the plans, removing some wall signage and added tenant sign over each corner sign. There is still a total of ten wail signs with total sign area of about 260 square feet. Grittman noted that channel letters will vary in their actual size. Voight asked about parking requirements, noting that although the site shares parking, this site is 27 stalls short. Grittman stated that the calculation is made assuming the building stood alone. That calculation is based on the maximum use. Grittman explained that the reality is that it is likely to be less, and even with that, cross parking covers the needed parking. Voight noted that it will be a tight block. Grittman stated that the report is based on a worst case scenario. Spartz commented that he is in and out at various times of the day and that in his opinion the shared parking will be more than adequate. Spartz asked about limitations of drive- throughs in terms of the intensity of user. Grittman replied that the ordinance sets no limit; each is examined separately. Spartz clarified that there is no separation between low and high volume users, so normally we would want to know what uses are. Grittman stated that under normal circumstances, that is accurate. Staff is looking at this from the perspective that the very high volume business will physically not be able to locate here, it would be self-limiting. Schumann noted that part of the intent of a PUD is to allow property owners to more efficiently use their sites, combining parking and access elements. Grittman also noted that parking needs for uses peak differently, allowing cross -parking to function more effectively. Dragsten commented that there was a condition requiring drainage plan approval. Grittman stated that general drainage was approved, but construction design is based on specifics. Dragsten asked for clarification on monument signage versus the other style proposed. Grittman responded that the code allows a pylon sign for every building and user. The applicant is proposing to transfer some of that area to the existing Jiffy Lube sign, rather than add another sign. The other sign is an entrance monument at Cedar Street. Dragsten asked if the drive-through's total lanes can accommodate somewhere between 5-7 cars. Grittman answered that the applicant believes stacking is adequate. Dragsten asked if stacking would back up into street or private drives. Grittman confirmed that it would be onto private drives. Dragsten also requested clarification on the location of order boards. Dragsten asked what happens if the applicant doesn't meet or follow these recommendations. Grittman responded that substantive changes need to come back to the Commission. Dragsten noted that as part of the recommendation regarding the last drive through, there was no order board. O'Neill commented that he hasn't seen any congestion at that location, with the order board. Dragsten said that the concern is that it wasn't approved that way. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke addressed the Commission as project developer. Mielke stated that they believe this is a good project. He noted that it is a time -sensitive project. He thanked 22 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 staff and consultants for working with them on working through the process. Mielke stated that the �p rocess re-desi is p roductive. p Mielke stated that staff recommended approval and based on the report presented, they are okay with conditions, except for the request for tenant mix, which has been addressed. Spartz referenced the tenant mix question. Mielke referenced parking, with 59 spaces shown. He noted that the drive -through stacking was not included in that calculation. There is room for 15 in the stacking areas, for a total of 74 spaces on site. He noted that they are constructing only a 9000 square foot building. They are providing a lot of parking as compared to other projects. Mielke explained that there are also 272 other parking stalls on the site. Mielke commented that the tenants are the best determiners of what works for the drive-throughs. Dragsten stated his only concern is what would spill onto the public street. Dragsten referenced to the order board at the Loch Building. Spartz referred to minutes from that meeting, which stated that there would be no order board. Mielke responded that at the time, the given tenant, who didn't need an order board, didn't take the piece. The current tenant asked for order board. Dragsten stated that was the concern. Mielke noted that it doesn't seem to be a problem. Dragsten stated that he just wanted clarification that he is going to build these, rather than something changing. Mielke stated that he is being accusing of lying. Spartz stated that this is a long process, and the Commission is looking to go forward. He indicated that he was frustrated that staff took the condition off, as it is in the Commission's best interest to examine this. O'Neill indicated that perhaps in the event that there are traffic problems, the developer could be subject to losing the CUP. O'Neill stated that it wasn't meant to be taken off completely, but end up being a compromise. Dragsten stated that this is a nice project, and looks like a very nice building. He stated, however, that there is apprehension in moving forward. Mielke stated that he did not say there would not be a menu board, but rather that the tenant looking at the site would not need a menu board. Mielke stated that he has read lots of meeting minutes and they don't always accurately reflect what was said and how it was said. Voight stated that he is concerned about two things. He commented that the building looks great. However, there is a limited amount of landscaping. Voight said that what's shown is going to look nice, but it is unfortunate that there can't be more trees. Voight stated that he is also concerned about the drive -through on Cedar Street as it seems like a point of congestion, especially for people turning off Cedar into Landmark. Mielke referenced that they have 59 parking stalls, with 15 more available on the site. He je indicated that is one stall for each 129 square feet of building space. Just south of this 23 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 development, he cited that the Warnert Building at 17,000 square feet, has only 54 parking spaces. This building is half the size. So, there is much more parking available on this site, Mielke reported. In regard to the concerns about drives and congestions, Mielke stated that he could site numerous others that create greater concern and problems. There is the same situation on Warnert. Mielke stated that he thinks this site will work better. He commented that Stumpf has alluded to what makes a difference, as there are actually four access points for ingress and egress. When complete, Mielke noted that the access drive will go through the site so that traffic gets dispersed. Mielke stated that at end of the day, if the tenants don't like the site, it will be he who pays the price. Mielke restated that he thinks the site flows well and that the connecting drive will disperse traffic. He commented that he believes that the bulk of traffic will use the north and south access. Dragsten and Voight stated that they are okay with parking. Mielke explained that in terms of landscaping, they have found that people in this area really like the upscale atmosphere of Maple Grove, and that they like the character of the building. He stated that they have continued architectural detail around all four sides, which adds a lot of extra cost and is appropriate. In terms of landscaping, he commented that instead of doing old standard, they are trying to create an upscale look with nice planters, each with 50 flowers planted. They will be irrigated, with electricity, as they want to light them for the holidays. Dragsten asked if they will have association dues with the leased building. Mielke confirmed and indicated that they will have a Common Area Maintenance document. Dragsten asked if, as related to the conditions, they are not asking for changes, the trade- off is just allowing them to transfer the requirement to planters. Mielke stated that he thinks it is an upgrade. Mielke stated that he has had a positive working experience with staff for this project, and would like it to continue. Dragsten stated that project seems to be nice and is in focal point of the City. Mielke commented that the location was part of the reason for on a portion of the architecture. Mielke referred to site signage, noting that the combined revisions to the Jiffy Lube reduce clutter. He said that the low -profile monument helps to identify the entrance. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that there are two decisions with alternative action and one exhibit Z. One decision related to the PUD and the other to the drive through. He noted that the five conditions relate to the PUD, and the others relate to the drive -through. Dragsten clarified that the condition relating to tenant mix doesn't need to be there. Spartz stated that he is not comfortable with taking it off. Mielke stated that he didn't believe that was 24 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 a requirement for any other applicant. Spartz stated that he is entitled to his opinion. Is However, the request is that the applicant is to provide additional information, and the City can make an educated decision. Spartz stated that while he understands Mielke's argument, he has confidence with staff that they can determine whether the mix is appropriate and that he believes they need that ability. Mielke stated that he would disagree, as he thinks McDonald's knows better than staff about their needs. He reiterated that it isn't fair to put that kind of requirement on one and not the others. Voight asked if the condition is out of the ordinary. Grittman noted that this condition is not atypical; it has been applied to other retail users. The City is not asking for names, only uses so that it can make informed judgements about parking needs. Spartz asked if staff took worst case scenario. Grittman confirmed that they did. . Dragsten noted that the condition related to drive-throughs, not parking. Spartz commented it isn't much better to allow stacking into a private drive rather than a public street. Mielke stated that he has never seen the requirement in any other staff report. Mielke stated that what that condition says is that before he can ink a lease, it has to go to staff. Grittman stated that it hasn't typically been a condition because applicants have provided the additional information. Mielke remarked that it puts them in a position to lie to get an approval. Dragsten suggested that perhaps they could define parameters, so that he doesn't have to come in. Mielke responded that their most successful site has stacking for three. Lee Mielke, co -applicant, stated that they think they are already addressing the worst case scenario. The tenants will dictate who will take the space. There isn't a way to have a lease with someone who needs 15 spaces in a space that has 7. The main point is that there is not one person who would sign a million dollar project only to have to go to a third party to get approval for what can be there. Dragsten again stated that some parameters could limit the requirement to come back in, and then they would never have to come in. Dan Mielke responded that their fear is that they have a tenant who they think is going to work, and the City staff say no. Dragsten asked if there is something beyond what site could bear. Mielke answered with the example of a fast food restaurant. Mielke stated that although they liked the building, they didn't like the site. Those users wanted to eliminate the second drive -through. Mielke asked if this exact phrase has been included in other requests. Grittman explained that in most cases, that information has been provided with other application materials. Spartz commented that the City should be able to make sure that it works. Mielke stated that the busiest thing would be sit-down food. Grittman replied that was how staff calculated parking, not drive-throughs. Grittman stated that the site will not work for McDonald's. nor for a coffee shop. They would be fine for a small -drive up restaurant. 25 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 • Mielke indicated that a sit-down restaurant parking space will be used for one hour. For drive though fast food, customers will use drive -through an average of 2 minutes per drive through. Parking for that use will be on average of 20 minutes. Mielke stated that Grittman has previously noted that drive-throughs tend to reduce parking. Dragsten stated that perhaps the condition should be that the drive -through would not exceed similar high -volume Burger King or McDonald's restaurants. If so, it would require staff approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The photometric plan shall be revised to reduce the footcandle reading at the property line adjacent to Cedar Street to not exceed one footcandle. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised signage plan, illustrating wall signage not to exceed 221 square feet total. The applicant shall also be required to provide square footage of the proposed pylon sign. 3. A crosswalk shall be provided at the sidewalk separation extending west to Subway. 4. The applicant shall use epoxy or poly -preformed striping for longevity and reduced maintenance. 5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as outlined in the May 21 st memo prepared by Bruce Westby and the May 22nd memo prepared by WSB. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND THE USE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE C09NDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. A "drive-thru only" sign shall be required at the entrance to the north drive through lane. 2. The use of the either or both drive -through lanes for any high -volume tenant, such as those equal to a fast food user similar to a McDonald's or Burger King, are subject to a staff review and approval. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 26 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage. Open and Outdoor Sales and Disolav and Automobile Re ai — - _ p r Li�h.t in a B 4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Moon Motorsvorts Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien reported that the original CUP was approved for a 6,400 square foot outdoor storage area, a 10,000 square foot test track, and a 28,000 square foot building. The amended plan reduces the size of the proposed building to 24, 493 square feet. She stated that the outdoor storage area has been increased to 7,325 square feet, and the test track has been eliminated. Holien commented that the applicant has made an effort to resolve the conditions associated with the previous approval. She noted that the site is consistent with the performance standards of B-4 district. Holien explained that due to the increase in intensity for the outdoor storage area, pavement may be required. A fence will be constructed along perimeter. No outdoor storage will be allowed outside of this area. Holien illustrated locations of display pads and parking areas. She referred to landscaping items, stating that staff is recommending additional plantings on south side of the building fronting Chelsea, as well as the addition of landscaped islands and additional overstory trees. Holien stated that the applicant is proposing monument signage in lieu of a pylon, and four product identification and business signs. She said that signage is well within parameters. The single access provided is consistent with requirements. However, the applicant has illustrated that the sidewalk is to be constructed b other s. rs. Staff recommends the sidewalk to be constructed by applicant. Due to the Chelsea Road exposure, Holien stated that staff has also recommended additional features and glass coverage for that frontage. Holien reported that no foot candle readings were available. As a condition of approval, no light will be allowed to spill on adjacent properties. Overall, Holien reported that the plan is consistent with the previous CUP and staff recommend approval with conditions as noted. Spartz asked about how large of an area the proposed wooden fence encompassed. Spartz suggested that there are other material options that would be more appealing. Holien responded that the fence surrounds the entire outdoor storage area. Dragsten suggested a maintenance —free vinyl fence. Dragsten commented that it is difficult to see what building will look like, as the Commission can't get a good idea of what it will look like on all sides. Holien stated that black and white elevation drawings had been provided for all sides. Dragsten stated that he would have liked them in color. Stave Binek, architect with Nelson Building, addressed the Commission. Binek reported that the fence is metal framed, high density polyethelene. They will have the same material on the trash enclosure. He indicated that they will comply with the is recommendations for landscaping screening for that area. 27 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 Is Dragsten referred to conditions. Binek addressed three items. In regard to landscaping and sidewalk along Chelsea, the applicant would request that those conditions be put aside until remainder of Chelsea develops. Binek noted that there is no sidewalk on the north. The other consideration is the requirement for conbit. He stated that they feel that it is far superior to class 5, which was approved as part of the original CUP last year. Binek stated that he major amount of traffic will be forklift traffic moving crates, so you won't see a lot of dust. Dragsten clarified that this is in the storage area. Spartz asked how big the storage area is. Binek replied it is 7300 square feet. Dragsten confirmed that it had been approved as class 5. O'Neill stated that in regard to trees, the City did not install trees with Chelsea, as it was the intention that as developed, they would be planted. The thinking is that trees would be better taken care of as property developed. O'Neill stated that he presumes it was checked that if the City has sidewalk programmed in, it was recommended that it would be provided incrementally. O'Neill stated that it could be completed as part of an overall improvement, which would need to be put on the plan and assessed. Spartz commented that by the time you get to the end, you would have to come back and do it again. Spartz stated that he agrees with the landscaping, however. Holien restated that the sidewalk condition would be that it will be constructed in the future, possibly through an assessment in one project and paid for by the applicant. Dragsten commented that he didn't have an issue with conbit in lieu of pavement. Voight agreed, stating that there is no need to create more impervious surface. Dragsten noted it would be when packed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO ALLOW FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY, AND LIGHT AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE B-4 DISTRICT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW. 1. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting standard is landscaped. 2. The applicant shall provide additional plantings on the south side of the east -west access drive and adjacent to the fence surrounding the outdoor storage area. 3. The applicant shall provide landscaping within the Chelsea Road boulevard, specifically overstory trees. 1. F iff lieu of eefibit. 28 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/05/07 18 5. The photometric plan shall be revised to verify that readings at the property line will not exceed one footcandle. 6. All wall pack lighting shall be comprised of full cutoff fixtures to mitigate any glare. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for future cost of construction of a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along entire south edge of site within Chelsea Road right-of- way with back of walk 1-foot from property line. 8. The applicant shall add additional aesthetic features to the back side of the building, facing Chelsea. Said features include, but are not limited to, additional glass coverage and vertical details. 9. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in the memo dated 05/21/07 prepared by Bruce Westby and the consulting engineer, as outlined in the memo from WSB dated 05/22/07. 10. A building permit shall be required for the proposed fence. 11. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed pump islands shall also be installed. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, • 3-0. 14. July Planning Commission Date The Commissioners discussed possible dates for the July meeting, seeking to reschedule due to the Fourth of July holiday. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO MOVE THE REGULAR JULY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM JULY 3', 2007, TO JULY 10', 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 15. Adi ourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 4 Recor An la Schumann _..., • 29