Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-07-2007MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetinss of July 11th. 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DULY 11Tx, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0 3. Consideration of addiniz items to the agenda. Chairman Dragsten asked Schumann to review the items added last month, including an update on Walt's Pawn Shop, group home regulation, and development monument signage. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Development State Planned Unit Develop_ ment for the proposed Villas at Elm. Ap_ plicant: UP Development Chairman Dragsten moved item five to item 10 to allow time for the applicant to arrive. However, the applicant did not attend the meeting at any time. Community Development Coordinator Schumann provided the staff report, indicating that the applicant, UP Development, had requested an extension to the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat approval for the Villas at Elm project. During the June meeting, the Commission had allowed the applicant a 30-day extension in order to work with the property owner to address the blight items in existence on the property. To allow time for proper inspection, documentation of blight, and notification, the items had been held to this meeting. Schumann indicated that the property owner has requested that the cement slab and trailers shown in the supporting data be allowed to remain on site. 0 Dragsten asked for confirmation that all other blight except for that shown in the updated photos had g � eP P been addressed and inquired whether anyone has communicated with the property owner regarding the items that remain. Anderson stated that he has communicated with the property owner. Anderson stated that the property owner, Randy Ruff, has been working hard to get the situation resolved. Anderson stated that it is his assumption that he Ruff be out in no time, if the sale was completed. The trailers shown are part of the new business that Ruff hopes to establish elsewhere and contain valuables related to the business. Anderson confirmed that only the trailers and slab remain; the truck shown in the photos has been moved. Stumpf stated that related to storage of valuables in trailers, he didn't know any other place the City would allow that to occur. He indicated that although he realizes they've been there for some time, somehow they have to be moved. Dragsten noted that his question is how to get them removed without the extension. If Ruff doesn't have the financial ability to remove the slab and move the trailers, perhaps the City has something to go back on to get them moved through the applicant's purchase agreement. Dragsten commented that if the Commission considers an extension, it could include addressing the two items. Then, hopefully the applicant will have all the engineering and other conditions addressed by next year. Anderson noted the current market conditions. Grittman stated that he is certain the applicant is waiting on the market until he can sell. Drasgten asked for Grittman's recommendation. Grittman stated that he understands the interest in talking with the applicant and property owner. He noted that they have worked toward cleaning up the site. The Commission's choice is to either grant them the flexibility or not. However, it will be important to let the applicant know that he should be at the Council meeting to address the issues. Dragsten referred to the approved plans and inquired whether they might change. Grittman replied that he doesn't think applicant will revise the plans. Hilgart noted that if the Commission gives him two months, the market won't change. Grittman stated that may be; although the Commission is at liberty to do allow a shorter time frame of extension. Anderson suggested that the Commission extend the item for one month, to allow both the applicant and property owner to be present. Dragsten stated that the Planning Commission needs to be concerned with the plat and issues relating to the plat; the blight issues are really not a part of plat. It would become a part of plat once he takes ownership. Stumpf noted that the applicant is waiting for market to pick back up and tying up property waiting for that market. He inquired whether that is a good situation. Grittman responded that is between the developer and seller as the Commission isn't privy to the purchase agreement. Stumpf stated that the City approved a plat with a number of townhomes. However, a year later, townhomes aren't the City's goal. He indicated that his point is that after multiple extensions, things have changed and the plat doesn't meet goals of City's comp plan any longer. Dragsten stated that a lot of that is driven by the market. Hilgart noted zoning plays a role as well. Gabler asked what would occur if they denied the extension in order to request a new plan; could the applicant re -apply or would they need to wait. Grittman stated that because the item had already been approved, if the extension were denied, the applicant could immediately re -apply. MOTION BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUKE 26TH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAS ON ELM TO JUNE 26TH, 2008, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. Dragsten noted that the blight items should pertain more to Ruff than Rollings. Hilgart stated that it would be nice if the applicant came and discussed market conditions for plat. Spartz stated that he thinks the Commission would end up with same motion. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Concept and Development Stage PUD for Ouad Development, a commercial plat in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Ouad Development , Planner Grittman presented the staff report, reviewing the plan specifics, including location and access. He explained that the plan presented is primarily an office development proposal. The plan itself consists of 51,000 square feet of space with a total of 248 parking stalls. As designed, the project is just 5 parking spaces short of what would be the code's straight requirement. However, staff is recommending approval, believing the parking provided to be more than adequate. It is almost certain that the code requirement is greater than the pattern of use. In fact, there will probably be excess parking. Grittman referred to the landscape plan, referring to the center green area. He stated that staff believe that the area would benefit from additional landscaping, particularly tree planting. There are shrubs along front elevation, but additional vertical elements would be ideal. Grittman reported that the applicant is proposing individual sign identification panels over each entrance. There are two different types of buildings. The gross amount of signage area on the property area itself is just slightly more than allowed by code. Additionally, there are two free- standing pylon signs along School Blvd. The site is allowed to have a pylon. In terms of total square footage, the site is just a bit over allowance. Staff is recommending approval of signage as shown, as they are monument signs rather than pylon. The wall signs shown at entrances are not likely to be as large as proposed, as they are shown at maximum. The other factor is that as four of the buildings do not face the public street, staff believe it to be a reasonable proposal. Grittman said that staff have included a condition requiring extending the internal sidewalk to the public street pathway along School Boulevard. However, the staff report also references a pedestrian connection to the pathway in Autumn Ridge. He stated that unless applicants are seeking it, he would not recommend that connection. In relationship to the building design, Grittman referred to the front fagade for both the two story and mezzanine buildings. The staff recommendation is that architectural features be added to the back of the buildings, as a large portion of the project will be exposed to other properties. This includes direct exposure to Autumn Ridge and Walmart. Staff believes it is important to avoid a single blank wall along those exposures. The plan also shows three separate locations for garbage enclosures. The plans do not identify materials, but Grittman noted that the code requires that the enclosure materials reflect building materials, which in this case are brick and architectural concrete block. The applicants are asking for flexibility in parking. Grittman noted again that there is a slight deficiency, but that it is believed to be appropriate. They are also asking for a slight variation for signage, and staff believes that monument signage is an improvement over pylon sign. With those comments and comments on landscaping and building design, Grittman stated that staff are recommending approval of the PUD and plat. Gabler asked about landscaping on the Autumn Ridge side, and whether it would include a fence or berm. Grittman indicated that it would not; they are relying on a landscaping buffer. He noted that the plan meets buffer yard requirements for landscaping and screening. Grittman explained that developers do not like fences as they are maintenance issues. Gabler commented that she was concerned about the visual of that area to Autumn Ridge. Dragsten stated that he didn't know if there was enough space for a berm. Grittman stated that staff can follow up on that. Anderson stated that there is a berm already there. Grittman confirmed that there is one on the Autumn Ridge side. Gabler asked why there aren't any trees on the mobile home side. Grittman indicated that in this case, the plan relies on the distance between the uses. Gabler stated that there is only one access coming in an out and inquired whether there should be a second for emergency purposes. Grittman responded that this plan meets the plans for School Boulevard access points, as developed by the City engineers. Grittman explained that it meets access requirements. i Spartz asked if the trash enclosures are going to be dumpsters. Grittman explained that they have to be in an enclosure and constructed of the same materials as buildings. Spartz inquired why one is in the parking area instead of at the end of property. Grittman answered that it is probably for access. Spartz asked about service entrances. Grittman stated that they should be able to use service doors to access the buildings. Spartz commented that some areas of the plan don't seem very accessible. Voight asked when an applicant is required to put in a full buffer yard. Grittman stated that when an applicant moves into a site that is adjacent to a fully developed site, they are required to provide a full buffer. Autumn Ridge needed to put in their half, as does this development. If Autumn Ridge had been there for 30 years, this project would have been required to complete whole buffer yard. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Eric Carlson, 9217 Orchard Lane, addressed the Commission. Carlson inquired how traffic would be regulated through Autumn Ridge. Grittman answered that the traffic from this project will go directly out to School Boulevard, it will not funnel through Autumn Ridge. Tom Moorse with HTG Architects, representing applicant, made himself available for questions. Spartz clarified that the applicant is aware of Exhibit Z. Moorse stated that they had a meeting with staff and that they understand the conditions. Gabler asked about rear elevations. Moorse stated that they would add windows to the rear facades. Dragsten asked about the roof materials. Moorse stated that they may be metal, but could possibly be a shingle roof. Moorse stated that the materials on the outside of the buildings are brick and stucco with concrete masonry. Dragsten asked if the applicant had any concern about the condition requiring the plaza to include more greenscaping. Moorse stated that it is not a problem. In fact, they are trying to get as much greenspace as possible and still meet parking requirements. The reason for the layout as shown is to get a courtyard feel. He indicated that as the entrance was a fixed point, the site needed to be arranged around that. Dragsten asked about adding vertical details to the rear and side. Moorse stated that they would add glass and piers to the buildings to satisfy those conditions. Dragsten confirmed that it would be on all of them. Dragsten also inquired if the trash enclosures would meet materials requirements. Moorse stated that they would. Dragsten asked about the buffer on east side. Moorse confirmed that there is a berm on that side and that the landscaping will be relocated to the Autumn Ridge side and they will also add additional landscaping. Moorse noted that there is also a utility line underneath that side of the property. Dragsten noted that the townhome site is lower in that area and then comes up. Stumpf stated that he doesn't like the parking lot. He indicated that he would prefer that building three be moved back and that they move common parking to the front. Moorse stated that the site has been arranged to maximize the parking. Stumpf asked why it would be different by moving the building back. Moorse stated that by meeting building requirements, in pushing the building back, they would loose parking spaces. Stumpf stated that with a parking lot so spread out, it looks unfinished. Grittman stated that hiding some of the parking was thought to be an amenity, and better than having large parking field out front. It minimizes the view of parking field. Staff felt it was acceptable. Stmupf commented that he didn't think it is important for building three to have rear access for employees. Girttman agreed that they would loose net parking by pushing the building back and that it would change the circulation. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Stumpf commented that he still has concerns about the parking lot. Hilgart asked what it is that concerns Stumpf. Stumpf stated that he doesn't know how much of a courtyard they're going to have; it may be better to square it off for looks and access. Hilgart stated that pushing it back is not going to solve the problem. Stumpf stated that he wanted to be sure that the applicants had looked at other options. Dragsten stated that the Commission could add to Exhibit Z another layout option. Voight asked about the condition in Exhibit Z requiring a reduction in drive aisle width. Grittman responded that what happens in this plan is that there is a large dimension between the end of the island and the first row of parking. He indicated that when you have an overly wide area, people lose their sense of where they belong. Voight stated he just wanted to be sure that they will not make it a one way. Voight stated that he liked the parking lot the way it is. Voight asked if Exhibit Z should be modified in relationship to the pathway connection. Dragsten confirmed that they should strike the connection to Autumn Ridge and that they could add a condition to look at an alternate parking configuration for building three. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE B-4 DISTRICT, • SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. A sidewalk connection shall be provided to the develepmen4 and to the School Boulevard sidewalk. 2. Additional plantings shall be provided in the center island. 3. The applicant shall extend the center island to the north to reduce the drive aisle width in this area. 4. Additional aesthetic details shall be provided on the back fagade and roofline of each building to add visual interest. 5. All wall mounted lighting shall contain a full cutoff fixture. 6. All trash enclosures shall be of similar materials and color to those of the principal structures. 7. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in the memo from Bruce Westby dated July 313t, 2007, and the memo from WSB dated July 31, 2007. 8. The applicant provide alternative parking arrangement options as related to Building Three. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for the proposed Rivercitv Station, a commercial plat in a B-3 (HiLyhwav Business) District, and a request for rezoning from B-3 (Hi6wav Business) to B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: Chelsea Road, LLC Grittman reported that the applicant had requested tabling of this item. However, he noted that for proper procedure, as the items had been noticed, the Commission should open the public hearing and continue the items. Chairman Dragsten opened public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED RIVERCITY STATION, A COMMERCIAL PLAT IN A B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) DISTRICT, AND A REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS). MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit for Oven and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Olson Propertv Management Due to an incomplete application, Schumann explained that this item would require continuation also. Councilmember Stumpf brought up the current condition of the site, as the applicant is already storing vehicles on site. Schumann reported that she had spoken with the applicant to notify them that they are in violation. Spartz asked why the notice was published if the application was incomplete. Schumann referred to communication with the applicant regarding a possible Council waiver of application requirements. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE IN A B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Revlat and Final Plat for First Minnesota Bank Commercial, a commercial plat in the CCD (Central Community District). Applicant: 1" Minnesota Bank Schumann reported that the applicant had requested tabling and that a continuation was also needed on this item. Dragsten asked if this request was related to the site parking and if the house adjacent to the site is involved. Grittman stated it turned out in the preliminary review that there is a variance need, which needs to be applied for and noticed. Dragsten asked if the applicant is going to move the house. Grittman indicated that at this time, they are not. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR REPLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR FIRST MINNESOTA BANK COMMERCIAL, A COMMERCIAL PLAT IN THE CCD (CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT TO SEPTMBER HILGART. • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Consideration to call for a public hearing on the regulation of Group_ Homes by distance is single family residential districts. Joel Jamnik, attorney for Campbell Knutson, City attorneys, addressed the Commission on behalf of Tom Scott. Jamnik stated that the City's authority to plan and zone is derived from the Planning Enabling statutes. As part of that framework, and as part of deinstitutionalizing disabled individuals through the Fair Housing Act, the legislature tried to promote the placement within the community of individuals with disabilities. In doing so, the legislature also limited the City's power to regulate these uses. Group homes are permitted by law as a single-family use. Jamnik referred to the background information provided by staff. Jamnik stated that some cities have looked at the ability to regulate by distance. Jamnik stated that due to market conditions, a concentration of group homes was occurring in central cities. As such, the legislature approved authorization for central cities to disperse these homes. Only cities of the first class - Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and Bloomington — are allowed to do so. Other cities can't pass, regulations for group homes by distance, at least not legally. Last year, there was an initiative to see if legislators were interested in introducing legislation to allow other cities to pass this type of regulation. However, no legislation was introduced. The statute authorizes the Commissioner of Human Services to analyze concentrations of group homes within communities. There is possibility it could still be introduced. Jamnik stated that the staff report summarizes much of the statutory authority on the issue. Dragsten stated that when he read through the information, he noted that group homes were allowed, unless they were criminal or sex offender types of homes, which fell under something else. He noted that there is a provision that allows the City to regulate those types of uses; that they not be considered as a permitted use. Those could be regulated as conditional uses. Jamnik responded that the ordinance would have to authorize those particular sub -categories. Grittman asked if the City would have to have an ordinance in place, calling out that class, otherwise they would be treated like any other group home. Jamnik stated that typically, unless the type is specifically listed, it is prohibited. They may have to ask a zoning change. Dragsten noted distances in larger cities in relationship to the regulation. Jamnik stated that the state statute classifies cities by population. First class cities have populations over 100,000. For first class cities, the Commissioner of Human Services will evaluate how many other group homes have been licensed within those first class cities. Other cities are not addressed. Dragsten asked what Jamnik's opinion is if the Commission tried to pass this type of ordinance. Jamnik stated that he would recommend against it, as any challenge would most likely be successful and would include a claim subjecting the City to the other party's legal fees. On top of that, the City's insurance protection for land use is substantially different than its other insurance. The deductible is higher and is a fraction of other defense claims, so the financial hit is much higher than in other areas. If the Commission wanted to have the hearing and advocate for legislation would be one thing, but to adopt the ordinance, he stated he would recommended against. He stated that the recommendation is consistent with the policy of the state. Hilgart asked how many group homes are in Monticello. Grittman replied that there are only a handful. Jamnik stated that the problem is that neighbors approach operators, and offer to sell to allow expansion in neighborhoods. This allows group homes to have caretakers that shuttle back and forth. The very goal to integrate is contradicted by market forces of subcommunities. Jamnik stated that this presents a problem not only with remaining neighbors, but with the efficient delivery of public services. Jamnik reported that this same issue is being experienced by many other suburban communities, which does argue for legislature to look at this. Dragsten commented that there seems to be a fairly large concentration in a small area. Dragsten asked if larger institutions are starting to close down, where more homes are coming into communities. Jamnik stated that he is not aware of this particular trend. Hilgart asked who licenses the facilities. Jamnik replied that it is the State Department of Human Services. Hilgart asked if someone wants to do a half way house for chemical dependency, would that be allowed under this provision. Jamnik stated that it would. Hilgart referenced that case cite din the supporting data. Jamnik stated that the statute allows the City to designate certain uses as CUPs, unless necessary to protect the residents of these facilities. Essentially, the City can't attach conditions different then other similar property uses. Grittman stated that the rule has been around for 20 years, and that many communities have seen the development of these types of facilities. Over that time, he indicated that he cannot think of a time when any communities that he has worked in have had a problem with these types of facilities. There is a stigma attached, but in his experience there have not been negative impacts on the community. He encouraged the Commission to think through whether there is a need to regulate, much less the limitations on regulations. Dragsten stated that the stigma does affect the neighborhood and affects values. Larger concentration may cause a blighted area. Grittman responded that in his experience, this is not true as these uses are is intended to basically be invisible to the neighborhood. Not to say it couldn't become a problem, but that the market hasn't played out that way. Spartz stated that he grew up in a suburb where there was significant concern about group homes. He inquired whether anyone been successful in regulating the uses. Grittman stated that is the reason for the legislation. Jamnik stated that if you characterize what occurred in Minneapolis and St. Paul, where concentrations grew to a level that was not healthy, the legislation was amended to look at concentration. He stated that he thinks if that if additional suburban, exurban communities experience the same problems, the legislature will look at that item again. Voight clarified that the one exception for is sex offenders. Jamnik stated that they could look at requiring special clarification in the ordinance for the item and report back. Dragsten thanked Jamnik for being present. 11. Consideration to review an update on the status of the Walt's Pawn Conditional Use Permit., Schumann reported that it the City has learned that there is an impending sale on the property. The Sheriff is recommending approval of the license on a month to month basis. Schumann stated that there is an issue with the fenceline meeting the conditional use permit. Dragsten noted there doesn't seem to be quite as much storage outside of approved areas. 12. Undate Items Projecting Signage — Schumann reported that the public hearing would be in September. Comp plan — Schumann reported that the first draft had been received. Staff had requested a number of revisions. As such, the plan would be coming back for a second round of staff review prior to moving to the Council and Commission and then on to public hearings and community review. Monuments — Schumann stated that an inventory would be prepared for the September meeting. 12. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder 0