Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-03-1995AGENDA REGULAR N[EETIrNG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COON Tuesday, October 3, 1995.7 PAL Members: Disk Fne, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie. Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 6, and the special meeting hold September 19, 1995. 8. Citizens aommentelpetitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public hearing --Consideration of preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. 6. Public Hearings of a conditional use permit which would allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an I.2 zone. Applicant, Northern States Power Maintenance Facility. 6. Consideration of making a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and City Council to purchase a residential site west of Bridge Park. 7. Adjournment. bU N lYrn SPECIAL B FETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMIfS13ION Monday, September 25 1995,- 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten Members Absent: Jon Bogart Staff Present: Jeff ONeill, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to ord r. Meeting called to order by chairman Frie.5:30 ending by 6:46 v 9fi�lt�:�'r+9T��',T9f(::,.: � , �T'�'*�Sf,•.T�t�1'>�f. .., , . Commissioner Carlson abstained from items No. 2, 3, and 4 concerning the Prairie West Subdivision. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the developers of the proposed Prairie West Townhomes project have submitted a request for preliminary plat approval. This request includes an applicant for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as well as variances from th3 perimeter lot lines on all sides of the project, This project has been reviewed at concept level by the Planning Commission toward the objective of identifying design and physical elements which would, or would not, justify the granting of the PUD and variances. Discussion by the Planning Commission indicated that some flexibility to the perimeter setbacks might be justified by the fact that the property is subject to existing improvements which limit the use of the remaining land. The proposed project consists of twelve dwelling units to be developed in six twinhome structures. They are to be grouped around the Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 09/25/95 existing cul-de-sac, Broadway Circle" with a series of driveway accessing the individual garages. The PUD is intended to provide flexibility in the City's zoning standards toward the goal that by granting the flexibility, a developer is able to achieve a superior project to that which would have resulted from a strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance's performance standards. Thus, in order to recommend the use of PUD, the Planning Commission needs to make a finding the altered design achieves this objective, or PUD is not being used appropriately. A PUD is not intended to be used to merely shortcut the Zoning Ordinance, or to avoid the finding of hardship in variance cases. As a result, perimeter setbacks are typically applied to PUD projects, but 'interior" setbacks are not. Perimeter setbacks would be those which affect the projects exposure to public streets or adjoining private property. In the case of the Prairie West Subdivision these issues are not clear. With regards to hardship, the Planning Commission might find that due to the configuration of the property, the improvements already in place, there would be a true hardship in complying with all setbacks. Particularly along the east property line, the lot depth is less than 110 feet. Once the required setbacks are taken, there would be lees than 50 feet of buildable area. On the other hand, the Planning Commission could find that the existing improvements and plat design were put in place by the current owners, thus any hardship was merely economic in nature. The applicant is requesting approvals for three applications: (1) Variance to the setback standards on all sides; (2) Planned Unit Development to allow flexibility in the interior arrangement of the buildings and driveways; and (3) Preliminary Plat. O'Neill added that the Monticello School Superintendent was concerned about the setback next to the school property. Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Peg Hanawalt, neighbor to the west of property, I have had a drainage problem every since they started filling in the Prairie West property. 1 get water in my basement everytime it rains which has ruined my carpet. O'Neill explained that the City Engineer did review the drainage plan and did recommend that something be done. There was an offer to settle this problem. There was material moved on the Prairie West site and in the day caro area. O'Neill stated that the problems at the day care are a separate Page 2 O Planning Commission Minutes - 09/2b/95 issue and should be addressed at another time. Steve Johnson, neighbor, stated that he thought the project was too dense for the site. This project is pushing to the upper limits but if only 10 units were allowed instead of 12 the code requirements could be met. Chairman Frie stated that he had not heard concerns about the intent, coats, or style of the twin homes. This is an area that does need to be dressed up but at the same time stay within the zoning ordinance. Candy Johnson, neighbor, stated that she has been to meetings before about this site and is not against the development but is concerned with the setbacks and density. There is no guarantee that the land will not be developed by the school. A ballfield could be located within 12 feet of the development. Traffic is also an issue that should be studied. Grittman answered that the traffic in that area has been considered. John Komarek explained that this was his third meeting with the Planning Commission. He had met with them twice before with the sketch plan. There are many restrictions with this property because of the shape of the site, the large pavement area of the cul-de-sac, and the easement areas. The coat of the units would be $130,0004160,000. Komarek stated that he planned on having the area landscaped more than required. The outlot would be left for snow removal, parking, and green space. In the future, if this is not needed for these items it will be developed. Commissioner Frie closed the public hearing. Commissioner Martie asked how the setbacks would differ if Broadway Circle was vacated to a private street fMm a public street. O'Neill explained that this would provide more room for the buildings to push forward, but then if it as aesthetically pleasing will be the decision. The Commissioners all had concerns that granting the variance will set a precedent for fhture development. Grittman explained also that the interpretation of the setbacks will depend on the way the Commission views the site. The plat is usually looked at as a whole and if the building are f>;cing different directions within the Page 3 O Planning Commission Minutes - 09/28/96 development they are still subject to the front, side, and rear setbacks of the overall site. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROPOSED 18' REAR SETBACK FOR LOTS b & 8 AND THE 28' REAR SETBACK FOR LOTS 7 & 8 ALONG THE RAILROAD PROPERTY. SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN FRIE. DENIED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A PUD IN AN R-2 ZONE PROVIDED THAT BROADWAY CIRCLE IS VACATED AND CONDITIONS OF THE PUD ARE MET. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND VACATION OF BROADWAY CIRCLE OF THE REPLAT OF THE PRAIRIE WEST DIVISION. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Continued Ptiblir Hparin$- ^.o aid ration of a variance to the &ont yard setback requ:a,nment for a P iD 'n n R-2 ono. LnratieII is Ile n F rma. Outlet A- App i ant„ Swift ConAtniction. Vnntinued P„hlir Heating-•Con_aideration of approval of a mnditional use permit thnt too ild llow a P 111 'n n R•2 nne_ w+rntion is KI 'n F ams, Outlet A AgW i� 4 'ft .o a auction. Continued Nibbe H arina—ro aid rntinn of oroliminary plat npprovn_l of the Klein F rma Ruhdiyiaio - Location is Mein F rma- O itlnt A_ Apl;limnt. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the Planning Commission is requested to consider action that would allow development of nine townhome structures at Outlot A of the Klein Farm Development. This is a sensitive transition zone between an industrial area to the north and a single family housing development to the south. The homes will be owner - occupied and served by an internal private street. The development represents an improvement over the original plans for this area which originally suggested a higher density rental townhouse development. At the Page d O Planning Commission Minutes - 09/2b/95 last meeting the Planning Commission identified problems with the requirements of the buffer yard and tabled further consideration until the plan was amended. The original plan included a berm for the purpose of obtaining a 50% credit against required landscape planting. The plan was rejected because the height of the berm was not b ft above the elevation of the garage floor slab. The revised plan corrects this problem but fills in the drainage swale. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Terry Hartman, developer, showed a diagram on the overhead and explained that the variance being requested in the front yard is to allow the houses to move closer to street thus creating more yard in the back of the house along the industrial area. Because of the screening requirements Hartman felt the backyards were too small. Norm Wells, developer, stated that the amount of landscaping required will be too close together for the trees to grow. The Commission discussed the variance and decided granting the variances could cause a precedents on future development along the industrial zone. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A PUD IN AN R-2 ZONE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP WAS SHOWN. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN AN R-2 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE SITE PLAN MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS DETERMINED BY PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL. 2. THE DRAINAGE SWALE ALONG THE REAR LOT LINE MUST NOT BE FILLED, OR THE DEVELOPER MUST WORK WITH THE CITY TO INSTALL A STORM SEWER LINE AT THIS LOCATION. Page B 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 09/25/95 3. LANDSCAPING BE REVIEWED AN APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. 4. LANDSCAPED PLANTINGS OR LOW MAINTENANCE GROUND COVER MUST BE PLANTED IN AREAS WHERE BERM GRADES EXCEED 3 TO 1 SLOPE. 5. UTILITY PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 6. A UTILITY EASEMENT MUST BE PROVED WHICH WOULD ALLOW ACCESS TO THE INTERNAL WATER AND SEWER MAINS SERVING THE SITE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND association BYLAWS MUST STATE THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR REPAIRS TO ANY STRUCTURE (SIDEWALKS, STREETS, CURB, TREES, ECT.) THAT IS DAMAGED IN THE PROCESS OF UTILITY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY. THE CITY MUST BE GRANTED A STORM SEWER EASEMENT IN THE STORM WATER PONDING AREA LOCATED EAST OF THE SITE. TO AVOID LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS FOR THE ASSOCIATION AND TO ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT, REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND A NATIVE GRASSES RESTORATION FIRM FOR HT PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS IN THE STORM WATER BASIN. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASSOCIATION AND BYLAWS AS PRESCRIBED BY ORDINANCE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF THE KLEIN FARMS ESTATES SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED IN CUP APPROVAL. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 09/25/95 COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectively submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 7 (D. REGULAR MEEMIG - MONTICSLLO PIANNDiG COMMISSION Tuesday, September 5,19M - 7 p.m. Members: Dict Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Members Jeff ONeill, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer raln kn order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Add nthw i emu Jon Bogart added discussion of boulevard trees to the agenda. iTtilzen. WMM="- 'Dere were no citisens comments. 2, eeting held i + y 2S_ liifi6_ xnd ip moulnr m '*+g h Id no��at 1_ lAAfi. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 28,1998. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 1, 1995. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGRM. Motion passed unanimously. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Vector Engineering is requesting a simple conditional use permit request which would allow elimination of eusbin an area proposed for future expansion. Itis common practice of the City to allow elimination of a curb in area where it is likely that a parking lot or drive area will be expanded at some time in the future. According to the City Engineer, the curb line elimination will not result in drainage or erosion problems. Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/08/95 There were no comments. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Frie asked staff if the company is in compliance with zoning code. O'Neill reported that this is a new company but they have been very easy to work with and no problems are expected. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ELIMINATION OF A CURB LINE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE CURB LINE WILL NOT RESULT IN EROSION PROBLEMS AND IS IN THE LOCATION OF A PROPOSED FUTURE EXPANSION. SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Pyhli - H mins _ naidarntien of a mnditin al +sana+it allowins a pinnnad +nit day inr+mant n n R Phil Ana_ w+ratien is +flet A� sin F n+na Ali nt '!t .n s� ++men Jeff O`Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Swift Construction is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of site and building plans for construction of Klein Farms Estates. The proposed twin home development is to located north of Stoneridge Drive and West of Fallon Avenue and is described as Outlot A. I(lein Farms. The property is zoned PUD which does allow for nerability in code items, it will be mid density, with a buffer yard between the development and the industrial area to the north. This is the first development to follow the buffer yard ordinance in accomplishing a proper transition between the industrial area and the residential area. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reviewed the site plan. The holding pond is to the east, the Outlot A area to the west might be developed as a day rare but is also shown with a twin home design that would conform to the area. The existing berm on the north portion of the site has been lowered and reduced in width. A 'channel' has been produced in order to create sufficient fall for the walk out Units 5-10. The City Engineer has noted that the site grading will work from a drainage standpoint. Outlot A has been shown to be developable for future townimme units as requested by the City. There has also been discussion on a day can facility. The proposed 18 units would create a density of 6.2 units per acres, and would create an average lot that is approximately 7,000 square &et Additional information was requested on building details. The minimum width of a private driveway in a PUD is 20 filet The proposed development has 24 feet wide driveways. Each unit has a 22 foot long drive that has sufficient room for two additional parking spaces Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/0595 per unit. There have been no visitor stalls included in this development which is not an ordinance requirement, but may be needed. The following are concerns that must be addressed before the request is approved: Main Farm Estates utilizes a private driveway, all the units that run along Stoneridge Drive are to have a 30 foot setback Proposed Units 1 and 14 encroach upon this setbacks. PUD zoned areas allow for internal variances however, it would not be appropriate to allow external variances for periphery setbacks. The side yard setbacks do not meet the requirements of an &2 District, which require a ten foot setback Som site lot line. Additional information will be needed to review the building details. The berm is only three feet in height as viewed from the industrial park side. If this cannot be increased in height the amount of planting units will need to be increased. Chairman Frie asked for questions from the commission and staff O'Neill asked if the holding pond is maintained by the City or the Association? arittman stated that the City does prefer to leave this in private ownership with public storm sewer. Chairman File opened the public hearing. Terry Hartman, developer for Swift Construction, stated that he would answer any questions the Commission has. Chairman Frio asked Hartman to explain the difference between twinhomes and townhomes and what they offer to the City as a balanced type of housing. Hartman replied that townhomes have an aeeociation so the painting, landscaping, and any details that affect the outside appearance are all uniform. The majority of the buyers want an and unit so Swift Construction has gone mainly to twinhomes or tw"nd-homes type townhomes. The main market is single parents with one or two children and people over 50 years old because of minimum laaneare, snowremoval, and unit price. Hartman stated that the coat of the unite will be from 885,000 to 8105,000 depending on the'estrae'. Steve (hittman, City Planner, addressed concerns with the development and recommended tabling the request until more intbraoation was available. There is a concern with the building setbacks. The City typically allows a variance for setbacks in a PUD but not on the perimeter bounds of the Pages O Planning Commission Minutes - 8/05/95 prgyed. The setback that is required along the street is 30 feet. There is now 16 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other. This will need to be reviewed. The building locations should be revised to conform to the side yard setback of an R-2 District or a variance be applied for. There should be additional plans provided for that identify the building's floor plans, details, and elevations. The buffer yard requirements need to be increaeed or the berm or fence extended another five feet. Chairman Frio asked if there is a proliferation of twinhomee/townhomes in our area and if so why? Hartman replied that this is a life style that popular. A single person can have the association take care of lawn mowing, snow removal, painting, all the outside maintenance that would take time and equipment to do. Commissioner Dragsten inquired why the berm is only 3 feet tall next to the trucking company? The berm will only screen the industrial area on the ground floor rooms. Hartman stated that the landscaping plan is to have trees two to three deep and that will be adequate screening. Orittman informed the Commission that the current landscape plan is giving credit for a 6 foot berm, if the berm is less then the plantings will need to be increased. O'Neill asked if the berm was adequate. It does obstruct the view Brom the walkout but not the base floor level. Orittman showed example of the berm and questioned if this is a five foot berm or not. If it is measured fiom the drainage swale to the top elevation it is five feet but if it is measured From the base floor level it is three feet. O'Neill inquired if the berm could be raised another two feet or is the space too tight in the back yerde. Ron Howard, Midwest Engineering said that right now the slopes are 4 to 1 and if steeper it would be hard to maintain There will be trees planted on top of the current berm and this will block the view further. Commissioner Drageten inquired about the setbacks on the townhomes needing a 30 foot setback and only having a 15 foot setback now. Hartman stated that a variance would be needed because the buildings cannot be moved bad 30 feet. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes • 9/06/96 Howard stated that the 16 foot setback was needed because d the storm sewer pipe that goes into the pond The buildings could be moved 10 feet to the north and the storm sewer layout changed. This will move the setback to 26 feet and only a 5 foot variance will be needed. Tony Emmerich, developer stated that he didn't believe a variance was needed for this property. Grittman answered that there are no variances for internal setbacks required but the external setbacks variances are always needed. Emmerich added that this development will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and adding a 15 foot berm would be ridiculous. Gary Anderson, Building Official, asked Hartman how the overflow parking will be handled? Hartmark said the street in &ant of the townhomes is two way and parking will be on one aide and maybe both. Anderson then inquired about snow removal. Hartman replied that this will be handled by the association. It will be either piled by the end units or on the ponding area. Chairman Frie asked for Commissioners Comments. Commissioner Martie stated that even if the buildings ars moved there is still a 6 foot variance that is needed, no floor plans, buffer yard requirements, and other items that need to be looked at. Commissioner Bogart commented that he had in the past not commented on Mein Farm development but this is a different phase and his company is no longer working on this project.. Bogart was concerned that the 22 ibot driveways were very short and the cars with have bumpers out in the street. It is also important not to look like a big perking lot. Commissioner Carlson stated that the perking situation concerns him and he would like to see the elevations and plans for the buildings. The Commission discussed having a special meeting on Monday night September 26 before the regular council meeting. This would give the applicant time to aoquirs the additional information and at the same time not delay the project too long. Page 5 O Z Planning Commission Minutes - 9105/95 DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT A SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. .�. ..n B•. H^ Jeff ONeill, stated that being the first item was tabled this item would also need to tabled. Chairman Frie wanted to open the public hearing in case there were any other comments on this request that have not been addressed yet. Chairman Fne opened the public hearing. Terry Hartman, developer with Swift Construction, stated that he agreed that this item would go hand in hand with the other request. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. DICK MAIM MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE KLEIN FARMS ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 25,1995 SPECIAL MEETING. SECONDED JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. S. Review Pr i g Wast n bnma �rp�og�) 1Lket"l+ nn Commissioner Carlson stated he would be abstaining from the discussion or voting on this issue. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, reported at the previous meeting John Komarek presented a sketch plan which called for development of twinhomes on a site formerly earmarked for single family home development (Prairie West Subdivision). Conceptually, the plea appeared to be desirable, but there were complications in the designing of the development due to limited land area. The Planning Commission recommended that the developer review the site in more detail with the City Planner and come back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting with a modified plan. Steve Gidttman, City Planner, stated that he did meet with John Komarek and made changes in the site plan. The buildings could be moved closer tether and the boundaries pushed out to the railroad and school side where Planning Commission blinutes - 9/05/95 there is open land. One Way to resolve the variance to the street side is for the City to turn the street back into a private street. If this were done the setbacks Would be less. John Komarek, developer of Prairie West, commented that the street is 36 feet Wide, that is considerably more width than is required. The lot to the West of the entrance will not be developed until a future date because it will be used for snow removal or parking if needed. Chairman File asked if there would be an association established. Komarek replied that there would be an association. Chairman Frie inquired about the space on each level. Komarek said that there is between 1400 sq. R and 1600 sq. ft. on each level, each unit will sell for $14000 to $175,000, have double garages, with ample room for turn around. Commissioner Bogart asked how far from the curb the driveways would be? Komarek replied that the driveways are a1130 feet. Bogart thought 30 feet would be an adequate length. He also commented that this project might hall under a hardship requirement because of the width of the street it is impossible to require the 30 (bot front setback. The street has created problems in the subdivision and without a variance it will be very hard to develop this site . There is also the unusual geography of being bordered by the open apace of the school and railroad property. This property will never be built an so there is not a risk of allowing the buildings being to close to another building site. Chairman Frie asked if there were any pathway problems that should be Grittman stated that there will be good visdblities and that Prairie West should not pose any problems for the pathway. Komarek asked if he could proceed and apply for the preliminary plat. Frio stated that this is a good project and if Komarek can finish the requests fbr the variances this could also be on the special meeting for the 26th of September. Pegs 7 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/0&N ,.i.. :T.: ; e• Steve Cirittman, Northwest Associated Consultants, reported to the Commission that he sent only a small amount of material to give them an idea of the content. Grittman would like the Commission to decided if there should be a special meeting to review only the Comprehensive Plan material. After discussion, Chairman Frie Called a special meetings Tuesday. September 19th, at 7:00 p.m. to review the Comprehensive Plan. Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the Parks Commission requested that the Planning Commission review the proposal submitted by Steve Grittman for supplementing the comprehensive plan process by planning additional empbard on the park planning component of the plan. The original comprehensive plan project proposal included acme emphasis on the park planning related issues; however, the level of attention to park planning is not sufficient to sati* park planning needs. Therefore, the Pesky Commission requests that the Comprehensive plan project be alightly modified to include a stronger park planning component. In order to accomplish this, the City Council will need to approve an expenditure of an additional $4.000 on the comprehensive plan. The following are nouns wily the Park Commission views that it is important to complete a aomprehensive park plan at this time. 1. The rapid growth of the community will result in the need for additional park facilities. 2. The park plan will help the City substantiate the need for park land acquisition from developers at the time of subdivisions development. S. The park plea will identify areae that may need to be preserved as open space. 4. Utilisation of the Mississippi river as an Amenity. 5. It makes sense to complete the comprehensive plan process and detailed part planning at the same time due to the strong intenelationehip between the two plans. Page e 0 Planning Commission Minutes . 9/0695 The plan would identify strategies for improving the manner in which the park system is maintained Commissioner Bogart added along With, the park comprehensive plan he is also very interested in a shade tree program. O'Neill stated that the Planning Commission, outside of the Paas Commission, should identify current tree polities and reforestation; this should be a goal for the next one to five years. The Parks commission has already budgeted an extra amount of money for trees in 1998. Commissioner Martie stated that he would like to see a tree program promoted separately from the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Carlsan add there seems to be a strong commitment in the last years to keep trees off the boulevards and this policy should be reviewed. O'Neill added that for a number of years park planning and development has been somewhat neglected, which has resulted in the City Wling behind the demands of the community. At the same time, further grow in the community is increasing rapidly. These two fgctors require that the City take a proactive stance toward paras planning development so that efficient and sensible park improvements can be made on a timely basis COMMI88IONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROJECT BY ADDING A STRONGER PARK PLANNING COMPONENT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. COMMISSINER MARTIE MADE A MOTION O ADJOURN THE METING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. Ptespedftlly Submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Teehaician Page 9 0 Dtinutes Special Meeting - Planning Commission Tuesday, September 19.1998 - 7 pAL Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson. Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Present. Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer Chairman Dick Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Frie commented that Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill would be delayed. % %J: Steve Grittman. City Planner, stated that the main emphasis of this meeting will be on the goal and policy statements in the comprehensive plan material. A statement will be developed for each category and discussion on how the goals will influence the decision making process. Griuman also asked the Commission to be aware of the language used and make suggestions or ask questions as the items are discussed. Chairman Frio inquired if an annual review to update the Comp Plan should be scheduled? Grittman replied that updating should be a continual process with each application that is applied for. An annual review could be done as well but it is important to use the plan as a guide each week. Chairman Frie then asked when is the correct time to do the changes if Grittman add they should be done as part of the motion. (Example - As part of this project we will need to change our comprehensive plan to read - ect.) It also should be done via a public hearing process. Housho Grittman reviewed the housing goals and the importance of Amore housing project to not only look at lots, streets, and house sizes but is the project designed to create quality nei&borhoods and commercial markets that wiA help build a stronger community. Page 1 0 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 09.19.96 Chairman Frie asked Grittman to explain the last paragraph in relationship with the lower priced homes. Should existing homes in the older sections of town be required to pay for new development costs? And also, is there an over abundance of lower priced homes? Commissioner Carlson commented that he has heard that statement regarding too many lower priced homes but there was a market for this price range of homes and this was a step for first time home buyers. This is also the group that will look for the next step up in housing in the tiiture. Commissioner Dragsten replied that the older sections of town cannot be compared to the new developments. These residents have paid for the streets and utilities over the years. Grittman added that as the home matures it will amortise its portion of the ii►&aetructure but we are paying attention to this issue. We will need to be aware of this and compensate in other ways throogh commercial, industrial or higher market home developments. A strong labor force is an important factor fbr industrial companies when looking for a location. Commissioner Bogart commented that developere pay for local improvements and the cost of the services but the maintenance issues of snow removal, garbage, and city services do add to the budget. The next issue discussed was the policy statements on housing. 1. Housing is a support system for the primary City functions. 2. The City should monitor housing developnnent in an effort to provide in full range of housing choices. 3. Monticello will actively utilize its arcing power to accomplish its goals. Grittman explained that if Monticello wants to be viewed as a free standing city not a bedroom community there needs to be a balance between housing, commoedal, and industrial areas. Chairman Fria wondered why there is such a high demand for twinhomes. Grittman replied that a City cannot dictate how many twinhomes are being built if the area is zoned for twinhomes and city codes are followed. The market usually handles this issue. lbere could be a number of developers proposing twinhomes this year but that might be the total built fbr ten years. It will depend on the market and how many sell. We do need to monitor and create an effect land use area for twinhomes to be located. An example Page 2 0 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 08.19-85 would be a buffer zone between single family homes and the commercial industrial areae. The Commission needs to look at development for the nest 30 years not just one year at a time. Chairmen irie asked if the Planning Commission can dictate the dollar amount that is being built? Guttman said that the value cannot be regulated only the zoning and city code can be addressed by the Commission. Commissioner Carlson replied that the Comprehensive Pian is an on going process and should be thought of as a 'living document. G ittman agreed and stressed that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be referred to on each issue and updated each time there is a need. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator arrived. The Commission questioned when the importance of the Comprehensive Plan would be be stressed to the City Council and the other commissions. Orittman stated that there will be a workshop with the Planning Commission and the City Council to go over the goals and policies that will be stated. Commissioner Bogart stated that in the third policy statement the word monitor should be changed to 'encourage' so the statement reads: The City should 'encourage' housing development in an effort to provide a Rill range of housing choices. Orittman reported that the next housing policy is more than the application of the zoning code. It is rare that a planned unit development (PUD) will meet all the criteria. The City needs to be confident in its zoning standards. When reviewing a PUD the City must not allow variances without gaining valuable concessions from the developer. O'Neill added that in the past we have mainly used hardships as our Justification. A PUD can allow'trading" of zoning requirements if the city Baine by have a superior project. 800norn Development Orittman explained that in the pest the city has been able to take advantage of its ameas to the highway system, the quality labor supply, solid Page 3 (2) Special Planning Commission Minutes - 09-19.95 infrastructure, and affordable land without the negatives of metro -like congestion and costs. As the community grows, the successful continuation of these programs will depend on the City's ability to avoid these negatives, and continue capitalising on the positives. This will be a primary goal to continue the emphasis on economic development programs. O'Neill meted that the Planning Commission should strongly encourage the HRA and IDC to take an active roll in developing the Comprehensive Plan and reviewing the zoning ordinance. We need to develop a unified statement that the commissions are working together, through the Comprehensive Plan, towards a common goal. The Commissioners discussed the following policy statements: 1. The purpose of the City's economic development activities is to broaden the city's tax base. 2. Monticello will target high quality businesses for its economic development programs. 9. Investment in the traditional downtown should focus on facilitating a transition to the recreation and entertainment based center. The Commissioners discussed the intent and uses of tax increment financing. It was decided to compare the HRA criteria with the policy statements in this Policy In policy statement No. 2 the question of what type of business the City will try to attract was discussed. Grittman stressed that the Comprehensive Plan will be used to set up the criteria for the industries that come in the City. The nest issue was the downtown area. It was agreed that the statement reading "and successful redevelopment of the downtown area is a real possibility" should be changed to" and successful redevelopment of the downtown area is a real necessity". The City should take an active roll in deaning up the downtown and enhancing the river front area. Growth Management Grittman explained that growth management can take both active and a passive forms. The Commissioners agreed that Monticello should take an active roll in making sure the land pattern areas are appropriate. The following policy statements were given: 1. Monticello will direct the pattern of growth through land use planning and infiastructure development. 2. The City will monitor, but not pace, growth and development. Page 4 0 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 09-19.88 O'Neill reported that Orin Thompson is on the perimeter of the City limits. There was a sanitary sewer study completed that did show a huge trunk system would need to be put in before this development could be built. Also, we need to be cautious not to extend expensive trunk lines before they are needed or before finds are available. Community Facilities A City exists to provide a defined range of governmental services to its residents and property owners. The City needs to understand the demands of ite citizens in order to provide the services effectively. Monticello's goal in the area of community facilities will be to address the communities's demand for services in an efficient manner, balancing these demands with the community's demand to keep property taxes under control. Policy discussion point: 1. The City of Monticello will develop community facilities which serve to enhsnoe and achieve the communitiWe other goals and objectives. The Commissioners discussed what the City's inhustructure system should include? Often, infiestructure is thought of as sewer pipe and streets. However, inft tructure includes park lands and improvements, pathways, and community buildings. The latter facilities are as important to the City's quality of life as are the former, yet may be relegated to an inferior status as non-easential. The need for a park or community building should be evaluated, however, as to whether it efficiently f inhere the community's goals, and provides valuable benefits commensurate with its costs. A meeting will be scheduled with the HRA to also review the plea before the workshop with the City Council. This meeting date will be decided at a later date. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services TedmWan Page 5 9 Planning Commission Agenda - IOMW 4. Pn1+Ne l�a�..rng nnald t1.+n of amliininn �nlat of �ntlewlln land essit of Du F811en A�erme. (J.OJ Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., requests Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition. The plat consists of two industrial lots separated by the future extension of Dundas Road. Both lots front Fallon Avenue to the east. The entire platted area amounts to 7.47 acres. Lot 1, north of Fallon Avenue, consists of 4.6 acres, and Lot 2 gists of 2 acres. Each lot meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance in terms diet sire, depth, and width. Both lots are served with sewer and water service that is located in the Fallon Avenue righVd-way. Storm water drainage from the site is intended to flow easterly to land currently owned by Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. As part of the platting process, the City will be obtaining storm water easement areas in an area east of the plat. Acquiring the ponding easement area is necessary to assure the City that adequate ponding area will be available in the fixture. The preliminary plat is very simple and straight forward. There do not appear to be any planning or significant utility issues relating to the site. Motion to approve the preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition su)jeat to the following conditions. A 12 -ft drainage and utility easement must be provided around the perimeter of each lot and placed on the final plat. An additional 12 -ft easement located along the outside of the easterly boundary of the plat, along with a 12 -ft easement along the property line separating the 2Nontioello Industrial Park, Inc., property from the School District and the City, sIwW also be provided to the City. 2. Requirements for preliminary utility plan are waived. Preliminary plane addressing design of Dundee Road will be required and completed in conjunctlon with the development of Fallon Avenue, which is set to occur in the spring of 1996. Motion to deny the preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center Sid Addition. Planning commission Agenda - MS5 This alternative ahould be selected if it is found that an aspect of the plat does not meet code requirements. V- c TA" M MATION; Staff recommends alternative Ol. The plat is relatively simple and straight tbward. The lot sizes and dimensions are consistent with both city ordinances and with the zoning district boundaries. The developer is also providing off-site ponding areas for storm water originating From the site and is thus working with the City toward development of the comprehensive storm sewer system that must be developed over time to serve this general Copy ofpreliminary plat. Planning Commission Agenda -10/W Cb a" . (3.0.) A few weeks ago it was discovered that NSP was working on expanding the outside storage area located to the rear of their main structure. In response to this observation, they were informed that they would need a conditional use permit allowing expansion of the outside storage area. In turn, NSP has submitted an application for a conditional use permit and has also written a letter to the City indicating that they are planning to move forward with installation of a perimeter fence and noted that it was their intention to fully satiety the City on what needs to be done according to ordinance. SIM PIAN BSVIZW Due to a staff mistake, the existing outdoor storage area was not approved via the conditional use permit process and is not screened from view from the public right-of-way and is, therefore, a nonconforming use. This expansion ropreseats an opportunity to =Tod the nonconforming aspects of the site. Subsequent to realising the mistake, we have informed NSP that the existing outside storage area must be approved via the conditional use permit process and will used to be screened from view Brom the public right-of-way in accordance with code. The proposed expansion to the outside storage area will double the land area available for outside storage and will extend outside storage activities to the limit of the property on both the aides and rear of the site. As you can see in the attached site plan, about v3 to 1/4 of the space available is occupied by the vehicle storage building and associated employee and office parking. The balance of the property is proposed to be used for outside storage. The site is bounded on the east and west by industrial uses. To the east is located the City well along with the future site of Vector Tool. Polycast Manufacturing is located to the west of the site. An area zoned for residential planned unit development is located to the south of the site. According to code, the material stored in the outside storage area needs to be screened from view ficin this residential area In addition, on the north side of this site, a significant portion of the outside storage area is exposed to a view Brom the sheet. According to NSP officials, NSP is supportive of installing a screening fence to meet the requirements of city code along the portion of the storage area exposed to the residential area. Please note that in addition to this screening Planning Commission Agenda - 10/3/85 fence, at some point in the future, a buffer yard will be installed in conjunction with development of the R -PUD area, which will further act to screen the view of the outside storage area. This buffer yard will be constructed by the residential development. In the short-term, however, the screening fence will be installed around the perimeter of the outside storage area. NSP officiale have asked the City to consider waiving the requirement that the storage area be screened from the view of the right-of-way. They have indicated that the Sheriffs Department has trouble policing the area at night when they cannot shine a light into the storage area due to the screen. For the sake of improved security, they request that the storage area be opened to the street versus screened as required by ordinance. In order for the Planning Commission and Council to approve this request, the ordinance regulating outside storage would need to be amended. In order for the amendment to occur, NSP would need to submit a separate application for a zoning ordinance amendment Motion to approve open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in the I-2 zone which would allow expansion of the storage area at the NSP site as proposed provided that: all requirements of the coning ordinance regulating outside storage in an I-2 zone be met. the grading and drainage plan for the outside storage area is reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Under this alternative, the outside storage area would be screened Brom view firem the residential area, screened from view f -om the public right of way, the storage area would need to be grassed or surfaced to control dust, luting of the storage area would have to be directed or hooded away fiom the residential area, and the grading plan would have to meet the approval of the City Engineer. This alternative would also require that the screening fence be placed in the front so that the material stored could not be viewed from the street. NSP has opposed this requirement because of security issues. It is suggested that if NSP continues to oppose this aspect of the ordinance, then NSP should submit a separate application for an ordinance amendment which would allow outside storage to be viewed ilrom the street This is a larger issue that afiiscts all industrial sites and, therelbre, should be addressed separately. Planning Commission Agenda - 1OMM This alternative could be selected based on the finding that development of the outside storage at this location in an I-2 zone under the conditions as noted by ordinance is consistent with the character and geography of the area and will not result in depredation of value of adjoining land. Motion to deny open and outdoor storage as an aomasory use in the I-2 zone. Planning Commission might select this alternative based on a finding that the size and magnitude of the storage area is not oonsistant with the area or perhaps could have a negative impact on the residential area. r- STAFF RF[ ahCMFMATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit allowing outside storage as proposed. It is our view that the expansion of the outside storage area is consistent with the character and geography of the I.2 properties. The City has enacted a buffer yard ordinance which is designed specifically to create a proper separation between this type of land use and the residential property to the south. In terms of the request to waive the requirement that the storage area be screened Som view of the public right-of-way, it is our view that the conditional use permit should not waive this requirement, as it would set a significant precedent. However, if Planning Commission is concerned that perhaps security issues outweigh aesthetic concerns, perhaps the Planning Commission should move to call for a public hearing for the purpose of amending the ordinance to allow outside storage areas tobe viewed from the public right-of-way. Planning Commission could take this item up at the next regular meeting. In the meantime, NSP could move forward on completion of their outside storage area, with final completion of the storage area screen pending the decision on the proposed ordinance amendment. Copy of site plan: Copy of conditions required by ordinance. t 4 'r 15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). (AJ Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ, of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (HJ, of this ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (D I Qx 056 �\ i I � / s6wavI � { I { I I � u � t 14 I I \ IW J 7 Q V � w � u u u i r - yO Z ! K 1 W Loi LO a, x H 8S6 \\ NI F - Planning Commission Agenda - 10/3/85 8. (J.O.) Planning Commission and Parks Commission are requested to consider making a recommendation to the HRA and City Council regarding the potential purchase of river -front real estate located directly west of Bridge Park. A few days ago, Rich Carlson, acting in his capacity as a realtor, informed me that the owners of the property are interested in moving and that they are willing to provide the City with the first option to buy the property. The property consists of a house built near the tura of the century, along with the remains of a garage that was severely damaged in a wind storm a few months ago. A key attribute of this property is the length of river ftwtage that comes with it. The property is located directly adjacent to an existing park and extends along the river to the west a distance of over 300 8. Purchase of this property would be a key component of an overall long-term plan for redevelopment of the Front Street area, which has been talked about and contemplated from time to time. Other tactors supporting strong consideration of pig this property aro as follows: The Monticello area continues to grow and expand, and with this expansion comes an increase in demand for park space, especially park space along the river. As you know, the River Feat Celebrations are becoming more and more popular, and the availability of usable park land near the downtown for the celebration is stretched to the limit. Aoquisitioa of additional park land along the river would help the City expend the river -front park resource with the growth and demand due to growth in population. Purchase of this property is consistent with preliminary comprehensive plan policy and goal setting. As you know, redevelopment of the downtown and improving utilization of the river front has been discussed and has received wide support among individuals participating in the comprehensive plan process. 3. The present owner is considering rebuilding the existing garage. It makes sense to buy the property before more investments are made in the site. Planning Commission Agenda -10/M 4. Two properties immediately south and across Front Street are in sad shape and would be prime candidates for future acquisition. These properties could be combined to make useable park area 5. The purchase price requested is not known; however, it is likely that the coat. if purchased today, will be much lower than any future cost because in the future, it is possible that relocation expenses would also need to be paid. 6. This property is a prime candidate for acquisition because it is needed under any plan for river -front redevelopment. 7. Sufficient pooled TIF funds are available to purchase the site. B_ It�I.TERNATIVE ACTIONS; i. Motion to recommend that the HRA and City Council support the purchase of the residential site west of Bridge Park. This motion is based on reason, for purchasing the property as noted above and assumes that the price is reasonable. 2. Motion to deny purchase of the property west of Bridge Park. This alternative should be selected if the Planning and Parke Commissions are not truly interested in recommending that the City be involved in the redevelopment process. Philosophically, individuals could be opposed to spending city dollars in this flaehion. C_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION; If the Parks and Planning Commissions are truly interested in redevelopment of the Front/River Street area and are interested in making better and more public use of rivenfbnt property, then it should be recommended that the City purchase the residential site as proposed. City map showing property location. RES�NEaj1 FNR PO?VIRII R�NPSE PR�P�SE� R/VE I esy •' ° i so