Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-02-1998 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING ~ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 2, J998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, Robbie Smith Members Absent: Dick Martie, Rod Dragstcn Also Present: Council Liaison Clint Herbst, Mayor Bill Fair 2. Approval or minutes or the regular meeting held May 5.1998. MOTION BY ROGER CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Simple subdivision request by the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District and Monticello School District. 4. Citizens comments. None forthcoming. 5. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request for a rezoning or East Oaks Meadows from A- o (agriculture - open space) to R-l (single family residential). Applicant, Harold Schermer. City Plmmer Steve Grittman reported that upon the annexation of the East Oaks Meadows plat, the property must be rezoned to permit filing of the final plat. Upon annexation, the City's ordinance requires that the property comes into the city with an agricultural zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan has anticipated that the properties in this area, including East Oaks Meadows, would be zoned R~l, single family residential. That was the review standard used in evaluation of the plat prior to annexation. MOTION BY ROGER CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL, TO AGRICULTURAL, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN CALLS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA. Motion carried unanimously. Page 1 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 6. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a beauty and tanning salon in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Tom and Susan Grossnickle. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that Tom & Lisa Grossnickle have applied for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a beauty and tanning salon in the PZM District. This use is a permitted use in the B-1 and B-2 Districts. Those commercial uses are allowed in the PZM District by conditional use permit. The proposed use would occupy an existing residential structure at the n011heast corner of Broadway and Washington, across Broadway from the current high school/administration building. The Zoning Ordinance requires that such uses meet the performance standards for commercial uses and an additional requirement that the sale of any merchandise is retail only. With regard to performance standards, the primary impacts will be with relation to parking, building code improvements, and landscaping/screening from adjoining residential uses. While the buffer yard ordinance would require a substantial buffer yard, the PZM District states that there will be no specific standards. Instead, the development ofPZM sites are to be evaluated against the City's planning intent for the area, using zoning district standards as a guideline. The Zoning Ordinance would typically rcquire approximately six parking spaces for a commcrcial building of this size. The applicants have proposed seven, including one handicapped accessible space. The lot must be paved, and curbing is required to surrOlmd the entire parking and driveway area. The applicants have shown some curb on the plan. The project should be developed in conformance with all paving, striping, and curbing rcquirements. The normal buffer yard requirements would require a relatively wide buffer yard bctween a commercial use and adjoining low density residential. However, this would not seem to be practical in the original plat area of small lots and mixed uses. Instead, we would recommend a substantial fence and landscaped screen along the boundaries of the site with adjoining residential property. This would help to mitigate the conflicts of activity and lights associated with a commercial use which would be incompatible with most residential neighborhoods. Finally, parking areas are required to be set back at least five feet from all property lines. The site plan which was submitted is not a survey. Verification of lot line locations should be provided to the Building Official prior to installation of the parking lot improvements. This inspection could be made a part of the building code compliance inspections which would typically be necessary for new commercial development. The public hearing was opened. Page 2 . . . The curb requiremcnt was discussed. The applicant felt that the curb requiremcnt is not nccessary and costly. It was agreed that the curb requirement may not be necessary and the associated cost will hamper redevelopment. However, it was notcd that to removc the curb from the plan will require an ordinance amendment. Landscpaping between structures was discussed. Grittman notcd that it was not the intent ofthc PZM District to require extensive landscaping bctween like buildings where there is no business activity between yards. The landscaping is more important where vehicle and client trafIic impacts adjoining propcrties. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BEAUTY AND TANNING SALON IN A PZM DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PZM ZONING DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. 1. THE PARKING LOT AND DRlVEW A YARE PAVED, STRlPED, AND CURBED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. 2. SETBACKS OF NEW P ARKING/DRIVEW A Y IMPROVEMENTS ARE MAINT ACNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND VERIFIED BY SURVEY. 3. AN INTENSIVE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING BORDER, INCLUDING BOTH PLANTING AND FENCING, IS PROVIDED BETWEEN THIS USE AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 4. THE STRUCTURE IS CERTIFIED FOR COMMERCIAL USE BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. 5. A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHARACTER IS MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE STREETSCAPE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 6. A SURVEY OF THE SITE IS COMPLETED IDENTIFYING SETBACK LOCA TIONS. 7. Public Hearing-~Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and variance from the rear yard setback to allow a wireless communications tower. Applicant: U.S. West Communications. City Planner Steve Grittman reportcd that U.S. West Communications is rcqucsting approval of a conditional use permit and variance which would allow them to place a 1 63-ft tall wireless communications tower within the rcquired setback area of the Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Bondhus property. The site is zoned industrial, and communications towers arc permitted as accessory uses in this district subject to an administrative permit; however, they must meet thc zoning setbacks, which are 40 ft for both front and rear yards. In this case, the rear yard would be adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad line. The conditional use permit is required to consider tower hcights more than] 0 ft above the maximum building height limits in the district. This proposed tower is significantly higher than the I -1 building heights. U .S. West indicates that the tower, a monopole design, is needed in this area to provide adequate coverage for its services. Except for the setback issue discussed below, the proposal complies with the ordinance requirements. Variances are to be considered only where conditions unique to the sitc in question cause a hardship in putting thc property to reasonable usc. In this case, thc property in question is extremely shallow. In fact, the existing building in the location of the proposed tower is just 22 ft from the road right-of~way line and approximatcly 30 ft from the rear propcrty line. It would be possible to locate the tower on another portion of the site to meet setbacks; however, it would appear that this would interfere with some of the existing activity on the site. Moreover, this would result in locating the tower closer to Broadway, an undesirablc result. The proposcd location may be the best site given the alternatives in the area. . One issue which staff is still investigating is the flight path for the Hospital's helicopter. During the Hospital expansion planning, it was noted that the Broadway corridor was the preferred flight path for the helicopter. Staff will havc information relating to this issue available to the Planning Commission at its upcoming meeting. The public hearing was opencd. Represcntatives from u.s. West indicated that thcy had researched other sites and found that suitable locations are limited. The area is zoned for this type of use, and it is away from residential areas. They also noted that the water towcr sitc downtown was not suitablc because it is too low and the City was not interested the concept. A reprcsentative from the Hospital District was concerned about the proximity ofthe towcr to the helipad site. Dan Goeman was concerned about the visual impact of the tower on the city. Poor location for the tower at a key entrance to the city. The public hearing was closed. Richard Carlson was concerned about the impact on the cntrance to the city. Robbie Smith concurred. Dick Frie was concerned about the impact of the tower on helicopter flight safety. . Page 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRlE AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TABLE THE MATTER PENDING CONTACTS WITH HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND RESOLUTION OF THE HELIPAD CONFLICT ISSUE. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request for a Concept Stage Approval for a Planned Unit Development to allow a senior residential complex adjacent to the Church of St. Henry site. Applicant: St. Benedicts Center. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that St. Benedicts Center, a provider of housing for seniors, is proposing to develop a 120.unit senior residential facility on a portion of the property being developed by the Church of S1. Henry. The project will also require a zoning amendment, as well as a plat to divide the property from the Church site. Since the St. Henry's project is being reviewed and possibly amended to best accommodate the street system in the area, a precise legal description is not available at this time. Therefore, thc zoning amendment and plat will need to be considered at a futurc meeting. Land Use The site plan shows two 60-unit buildings, one for "assisted living" and the other for "independent living." Subject to final site planning adjustments, the site consists of approximately 8.4 acres, a density of approximately 14.3 units per acre. This density will require an R-3 zoning district or an amendment to the current zoning (P-S, Public, Semi- Public) to allow residential uses. The R-3 District would allow apartment style buildings with few restrictions. This option would be the simplest process. Since the project will require a PUD, the City should have adequate site development control to avoid any unintended consequences of a rezoning. Site Concept Plan The proposed project will be developed on a lot which will have no direct public street access. Therefore, the PUD will be required to accommodate the plat. Access to the project will occur over an access easement from the new 7th Street. The plan shows underground parking for the indcpendent living building, 40 visitor spaces for the two buildings, and 16 staff spaces adjacent to the assisted living structure. Due to the lack of surface parking planned, overflow will occur adjacent to the driveways serving the project. We would recommend that a "proof of parking" design be shown on the site plan to provide the ability to add parking if demand shows it is needed. With the PUD, internal setbacks are not critical; however, perimeter setbacks must still be adhered to. This project exceeds the R-3 setback standards. Also at issue would be the buffer yard requirements. An institutional use and a high density residential use are required to provide a butTer yard with 40 plant units per 100 feet. Under the PUD, this planting requirement could be modified, but the planting requirement should be incorporated somewhere in the project. This will need to be shown on the landscape Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . plan. On the east side of the site, the project adjoins an industrial area. The Zoning Ordinance assigns this a rating of "Signitlcant" in terms of buffer yard requirements. A 30-ft wide landscaped buffer with 120 plant units per 100 feet is required. Since the property to the east is undcveloped, this project will only be required to install half ofthe buffcr yard, with the remainder being required of the adjacent property at the time of its development. The public hearing was opened. Representatives from the St. Benedicts Home were present to further describe the project. It was mentioned that there were no objections to thc conditions listed. It is the intent of the project to comply with city ordinances. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REZONING SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERL YING PLAT. Motion carried unanimously. . After discussion, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Robbie Smith to approve the concept stage PUD, subject to the conditions listed below, based on a finding that the project is appropriately integrated with the Church of St. Henry project. Motion carried unanimously. Page 6 1. PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY CREATING SEPARATE LOTS FOR THE ST. HENRY'S AND ST. BENEDICTS SITES, WITH APPROPRIATE ACCESS EASEMENTS. 2. A CONCEPTUAL SITE ILLUSTRATING AN ADDITIONAL 24 PARKING SPACES WHICH COULD BE BUILT UNDER A "PROOF OF PARKING" AGREEMENT WITH ST. BENEDICTS. THIS TOTAL WOULD ACCOMMODA TE ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT, SPLITTING THE PROPOSED VISITOR'S PARKING BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. 3. PREPARATION OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUFFER YARD PLANTINGS AS REQUIRED BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL AND HIGH.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 4. PREP ARA nON OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES ONE-HALF OF THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ON THE EAST. . 5. APPROPRIA TE SITE GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/9S 9. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration of a request for a rezoning. preliminary plat. and development stage PUD for a 7S-lot single family plat to be known as Wildwood Ridge. Applicant. Farr Dcvelopment Co. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that Farr Development Company has applied for a preliminary plat and a PUD to allow a 78-lot single family plat along County Road 11S, southcast of the City's water tower site on Monte Club hill. The project includes steeply- sloped woods on one-third of the subject property. A single access from County Road liS would serve the site. The existing home on the property would remain adjacent to the access road, and future roadway extensions are provided to the west and to the south. Zoning and PUD The use of PUD is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance to allow flexibility in zoning standards, subject to a requirement that the flexibility results in a superior project not likely or possible under the standard zoning rcgulations. PUD is being proposed in this project to allow flexibility in lot sizes in return for a greater amount of tree preservation on the upland portions ofthe project. Over 750 ft of strcet frontage is consumed by outlots, which will remain in their natural condition. This distance would typically provide street frontage for as many as 9 additional lots. Instead, the developer is requesting f1exibility on a number of lots. The typical R-I standards require SO ft of width and 12,000 sq ft of area. Of the 7Slots, 43 fail to meet one or both of the R-l standards: Complies wi all stds. 35 lots Complies wi width only 6 lots Complies wi area only 19 lots* Complies wi neither 18 lots * Four lots at the top of the hill are "flag lots" - narrow driveway access to a larger lot area. This table illustrates that the developer has primarily attempted to make up for the lost strcet frontage by narrowing a number of the other lots. Thirty-seven of the "substandard" lots are less than SO ft in width. To accommodate this width, the developer has suggested reducing the garage-side setbacks from 10 :ft to 5 ft. The lots proposed for this deviation are Lots 4,5, and 6 of Block 2; and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of Block 4. One of the difficulties with varying standards in the same block is administration by City stafT; another is later requests by neighbors to construct additions to standards in the neighborhood. Keeping these details straight can be difficult for staff specialists, let alone for other statT fielding questions from the public. A consistent set of regulations should apply, or a method of monitoring varying setbacks should be established. The project includes a series of outlots which would be preserved in their natural state. Outlot A (3.62 acres) is a wetland and storm water control area. Outlot B (3.30 acrcs) includes much of the wooded hillside. Staff recommends a natural trail through this Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . area--it would be unpaved and meander along the slope to the upper hill area. Outlots C and D (.43 and .39 acres, respeetively) provide special tree preservation sites on the upper hill. The developer proposes to dedicate these lots to the City, over and above the normal park land dedication requirements. From Outlot C, an easement across the rear lot line of Lots I and 2 of Block 6 would provide access from this development to the water tower site and city park land. The plat has been designed with 52-ft wide rights-of-way with 32-ft wide streets. Staff has suggested that the hillside street, "Wildwood Way," be platted at 60 ft but with reduced front setbacks. 'I'he purpose in this proposal is to retain public right-of-way in the area where the street curves back and forth up the hill. Allowing the lesser front setback will accommodate the interest in reducing grading in the rear yards, saving more of the trees and the native slopes. The developcr has indicated that these lots will be graded by the developer to avoid builders overgrading the site and costing additional trees. In the lower area of the project, staff has indicated that the 52-ft right-of-way would be acceptable, subject to a requirement that the intersections be platted with a radius to accommodate strcet signs and other necessary improvements. The Public Works Director can providc direction on the size of the radius necessary. . The developer has also proposed four "flag lots" at the end of the upper cul-de-sac. These lots would have full-sized buildable areas and meet all setbacks. Howcver, the driveways would be located in narrow necks, increasing thc number of curb cuts on the cul-de-sac. This issue has led to staffs recommendation that a homeowner's association be responsible for snow removal in this area. The seven driveways on the end of the cul- de-sac eliminate any area for snow storage, and there will likely need to be regular removal of plowed snow from the cul-de-sac area. This would also be the case for the modified turn-around space at the north end of Marquette Drive. The hillside prevents the construction of a full cul-de-sac without a large retaining wall and significant grading. The City's snow removal equipment is not suited for clearing areas ofthis design. The public hearing was opened. Dick Frie requested that the letter submitted by Public Works be forwarded to the City Council but not addressed by the Planning Commission due to late arrival. Mike Gair, representing Farr Development Corporation, noted that two lots have been removed which eliminates problems associated with condition I, as all lots will be able to meet setback requirements. He requested that the conditions listed include modifications to the sidewalk requirement, and he requested modifications to the association requirement for snow removal by information on the deed regarding snow removal. . It was noted that the developer is providing land and 10% of the raw land value as a cash deposit to the City for park dedication. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . A local resident asked if the storm water issues have been resolved. Jeff O'Neill noted that the City Engineer has indicated that the storm sewer system will be designed in accordance with City standards. WCSCD has been eontacted and noted that there will be no wctland impact; howevcr, we should be sure to use proper erosion control measures as always. The public hcaring was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REZONING, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMA nON FROM TIlE MOAA BOARD. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD MEET TI-IE INTENT OF THE CITY'S pun ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. 1. STANDARDIZATION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE PLAT ESTABLISHED THROUGH REMOVAL OF TWO LOTS THUS CREA TING A DEVELOPMENT WITH 76 LOTS. . 2. IDENTIFICA TION OF A NATURAL TRAIL THROUGH THE HILLSIDE OF OUTLOT B, WITH A CONNECTION TO COUNTY ROAD 118 ACROSS THE NORTHERNMOST LOT - LOT 11 OF BLOCK 2. 3. SIDEWALK ALONG WILDWOOD BOULEVARD AND WILDWOOD WAY TO OUTLOT C, CONNECTING VIA PATHWAY THROUGH OUTLOT C TO THE CITY'S WATER TOWER SITE--OR SUITABLE STREET/PATHWA Y ALTERNATIVE. 4. REDESIGN OF THE PLAT SHOW A 60-FT RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH THROUGllOUT THE SITE, WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR 25-FT FRONT YARD SETBACKS. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEED RESTRICTION IDENTIFYING HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR REMOVING PLOWED SNOW FROM IN FRONT OF PROPERTIES. 6. MODIFICATION OF THE PLAT TO INCLUDE RADIUSES AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, PER PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION. . 7. PROVISION OF 60-FT RADIUS ON THE CUt-DE-SAC OFF OF THE WEST SIDE OF MARQUETTE DRIVE. Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . 8. RECOMMENDA nONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER ON GRADING, STORM WATER CONTROL, AND UTILITIES. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED UNDER THE PUD APPRO V AL ABOVE. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a 220-acre residential subdivision. Applicant. Gold Nugget Development. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that Gold Nugget has applied for consideration of a residential Planned Unit Development on land it owns south of the Kjellberg East Mobile Home park. The site consists of approximately 220 acres between the Mobile Home park and 85th Street NE, east of Trunk Highway 25 and west of County Road 117. The northeast corner of the site adjoins the southwest corner of the Klein Farms single family subdivision. 85th St NE is the south boundary of the Orderly Annexation Area. . The project would consist of a combination of approximately 339 single family homes, 176 townhomes, 20 twin homes and 40 "detached townhomes", a total of 577 units. The developer has reserved 5.5 acres in the southwcst corner of the project for commercial use--a separate zoning action would be necessary to approve any commercial land. The project would be developed in phases along a minor collector street extending from County Road 117 on the east to the southwest corner ofthe project at 85th Street NE. He noted that proceduraUy, the City should consider the PUD concept, making comments and requirements for the developer's further planning. FoUowing the concept plan, the developer will need to apply for a preliminary plat, a rezoning ofthe first phase, and a development stage PUD. Although the entire project will be covered by the PUD, it is expected that the City wiU zone specificaUy by land use. Therefore, the single family areas will likely be zoned R-l, the townhome and twin home areas will be R-2, and a commercial zoning designation will be given to the two commercial lots if approved. The annexation of the first phase would occur with the approval of the final plat and final PUD. . The review of the concept stage PUD is for the purpose of identifying issues in the design which would raise concern for the City. A PUD project is assumed to be a departure from the zoning standards, but with a superior design and development not likely through the strict application of those standards. Therefore, the ultimate finding which the City must make is that the project design meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. This report discusscs the variation from strict zoning standards which the developer proposes and how those variations may be viewed in a PUD context. In summary, the City's action should be a general comment on the acceptability of PUD and, if positive, direction on each ofthc individual variations proposed. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Land Use and Density The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed as low density residential. The overall project density is approximately 2.7 units per gross acre, about 3.8 units per net acre (exclusive of roads and parks). This density would qualify for the City's application oflow density residential. The net density of the single family area is 3.05 units per acre, corresponding to an average lot size of approximately 14,263 sq ft. As an average, this would meet the minimum R-l standard lot size of 12,000 sq ft. The developer is asking for the PUD in order to vary the individual lot sizes to include a series of about 43 scattered lots which would bc both narrower in width and smaller in area than the R-I standards, whereas others would be significantly larger. The majority of the "substandard" lots are programmed for the periphery of the project, particularly adjacent to TH 25 and the mobile home park boundary. Some of these lots would be deeper to allow greater buffering from the adjacent use. Scattering these lots throughout the neighborhood is designed to avoid a concentration of small lots and homes (and presumably lesser valued homes) in one area. The developer proposes a standard for the smaller lots of 10,000 sq ft and 65 ft in width. . In conjunction with the lot size adjustments, the developer is proposing to use a smallcr side setback standard in that area. A reduction in the side yard setback to 5 ft on the garage side of the home is proposed to allow greater buildable area. Throughout the project, the developer is proposing a varying front setback to creatc additional interest along the street. Instead of the standard 30 ft, a range of20- to 40-ft setbacks has been proposed. At the preliminary plat stage, the developer proposes to illustrate how this standard would be applied to the individual lots. With regard to the townhomes and other unit types, they range in density from just under 4 units per acre to around 6.5 units per acre. This density would be considered medium dcnsity as a freestanding development. The developer's proposal is to average the density throughout the project to maintain a density of less than four units per acre. The commercial areas at the southwest corner ofthe project represent a departure from the residential pattern for the area. The developer has discussed a neighborhood oriented commercial use, such as a convcnicnce store/gas station or other similar land use. As a "support" land use, the proposal could be construcd to be acceptable under the conccpts discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Too much commercial at this corner, howevcr, or commercial uses which are more regional in scope, would appear to compromise the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission should discuss the benefits of commercial use at this corner and give some reaction to the developer and to staff. Project Design and Parks/Pathways . The project concept utilizcs a "lincar park" design concept throughout the subdivision. The park would connect to the trail corridor at the northcast corner ofthe plat and wind through the project as shown on the attached exhibit. The park dedication equals ten percent of the land area and is proposed to mcet thc full rcquirement of the Subdivision Page II Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Ordinance. The park area varies from a 100-ft wide corridor along the north boundary to more than 300 ft in width at Street A (the collector street) back to around 100 ft in width at the termination near the westerly townhome area. 'I'here are three comments regarding the park and pathway design which the Parks Commission and staff have made in review of the project. The Parks Commission was concerned about the "remoteness" of the bulk of the park area. They encouraged a greater exposure of the park land to the street, particularly at the crossing of Street A. They did note that the width of the park here mitigated this concern somewhat. However, they preferred to have broad park exposure on at least two streets, in addition to the pathway connections as shown. The second comment relates to the western terminus of the park. Since this area "dead ends" at the townhome project, we would encourage a larger focus for park use on this end. Converting the four to six lots adjacent to the end of the linear park as shown on the park exhibit would create a small "green" which could serve as the primary active open space for the western portion of the plat. This area would comprise around two acres which could be used both for neighborhood park use and an important focus for the linear park system as a whole. . The third comment regards pathway connection to the north. Staff debated the concept of providing street access to the north along TH 25 as a frontage road connection past Kjellberg East. This concept is not shown on the proposed plan, but it should be replaced with a pathway connection to the northwest as shown on the parks exhibit. The park system as proposed would include a pathway, potentially lighted, throughout the development. The wider area near the crossing of Street A would accommodate an informal play field, and several locations in the system could accommodate smaller play structures. The townhome projects should consider inclusion of private recreational amenities to mitigate impacts on the public facilities in the project. At a build-out population of around 1,300 persons, the project will place significant demands on public recreation facilities in the area. For the southern townhome project, a public pathway connection through to the cul-de-sac from the main park should also be included. Streets, Utilities, Sidewalks The majority ofthe streets in the project would be local streets, with 60-ft rights-of-way and either 30- or 32-ft street widths. The specifics would be identified at preliminary plat stage; however, we have included a street exhibit with planning staff's understanding of the application of the City's policy on street widths to this project. The minor collector would require 70 ft of right-of-way and would be constructed at least 36 ft in width. The City Engineer should comment on the street widths as well. . The developer is proposing the pathway connections in the park in lieu of sidewalks which would otherwise be required on most streets. The exception would be a recommendation for a sidewalk along the minor collector to accommodate pedestrian or Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes ~ 6/2/98 . bicycle traffic along the busier route. This should be located on the north/west side of Street A to give easiest access to the townhomes along the west boundary and connection to the pathway leading to the School complex. A series of small ponds are scattered throughout the development. Engineering staff will have to rcview the drainage plan to ensure proper storm water control. At this time, it is the City's understanding that there are no wetlands on the site. The linear park follows a drainage swale for much of the east half of the project. Staff has also discussed the requirement for entrance monumentation to the project to add identity to this large neighborhood. Thcre are three main entrances to the project: One from TH 25 (to be confirmed by MnDOT), one from 85th Street NE, and one from County Road 117. Three other minor entrance roads also serve the project. As an additional note, the City will need to work with the Township on improvements and maintenance of 85th Street. With regard to utilities, the City Engineer should review the utility planning and advise the developer as to infrastructure improvements necessary for the project. Staff has discussed a phasing plan which would encourage development from the northeast corner to the northwest corner first in order to provide water main looping as quickly as possible. The next priority would be to provide additional access to the project from the external street system. . The public hearing was opened. Leon Opatz representing the developer reviewed the project in additional detail. He noted that the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are achievable. It will be possible to make adjustments to the park size and location to accommodate concerns. The public hearing was closed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED TN EXHIBIT Z. This motion is based on the finding that with the conditions, the project would meet the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and PUD regulations by providing for a project which is superior in quality and design than would be otherwise developed under the strict application of the City's zoning standards. 1. PROVISION OF A LANDSCAPED BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE ADJACENT USES ON THE WEST (TH 25) AND THE NORTH (KJELLBERG EAST). THIS NEED NOT BE AN OPAQUE SCREEN BUT SHOULD BE A REASONABLE GREEN, VISUAL BUFFER. . Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 2. NO MORE THAN THE PROPOSED 43 LOTS FAIL TO MEET THE R-l MINIMUMS, AND OF THOSE, THE MINIMUM STANDARDS WOULD BE 10,000 SQ FT AND 65 FT IN WIDTH. . 3. REDUCTION IN SIDE YARD SETBACK STANDARDS WILL ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO THE BLOCKS WHICH CONTAIN THE SMALLER LOTS. 4. TOWNHOME TYPES WILL NOT EXCEED THE DENSITIES PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN. 5. THE COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE LIMITED TO THE SIZE INDICATED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN AND ARE LIMITED TO NEIGHBORHOOD RELATED USES. 6. A PAVED PATHWAY IS INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT IN LIEU OF SIDEW ALK IN MOST OTHER AREAS. 7. THE P ATHW A Y IS ACCOMPANIED BY LOW LEVEL LIGHTING FOR THOSE AREAS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT, REMOTE FROM THE STREET. 8. THE PARK AREA IS WIDENED AT THE COLLECTOR STREET AS INDICATED ON THE PARK EXHIBIT. THIS AREA SHOULD BE GRADED TO ACCOMMODATE AN INFORMAL PLAY FIELD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE. . 9. THE PARK AREA IS EXPANDED TO CREATE A COMMON GREEN NEAR THE WESTERN TOWNHOMES AS INDICATED ON THE PARK EXHIBIT. 10. THE PARK AREA IS CONNECTED TO THE NORTHWEST VIA A PATHWA Y CONNECTION AS SHOWN ON THE PARK EXHIBIT, AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTHERN TOWNHOME CUL-DE-SAC. 11. TFlE COLLECTOR STREET THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT IS PLATTED AT A 70-FT RIGHT-OF-WA Y, WITH A STREET CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDA TIONS. 12. THE REMATNDER OF THE STREETS ARE PLATTED AT 60-FT RIGHTS- OF-WAY, WITH 30- OR 32-FT STREET SECTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE STREETS EXtITBIT. . 13. A SIDEWALK ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE COLLECTOR IS DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE PROJECT. Page 14 . . . 12. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 14. ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 15. PHASING WHICH PROVIDES LOOPING OF WATER AND ADDITIONAL MAJOR STREET ACCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 11. Public Hearing--Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan by adopting a Comprehensive Parks and Pathway Plan. Applicant Monticello Parks Commission. City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the comprehensive park and pathway plan prepared and recommended for approval by the Parks Commission. Parks Commission Chairman noted that the plan will provide the Parks Commission with direction in applying park resources as the community grows. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. DICK FRIE COMMENDED THE PARKS COMMISSION ON THEIR EFFORTS AND MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH AND PASSED UNANIMOUSL Y. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration of an ordinance adding Title 10. Chapter 2. Section 2-2. Subsections [T A.l]. [RH] and [II]: and adding Title 10. Chapter 3. Section [3-11A] to the City Code. establishing regulations for outdoor sales and displays. (F.P.) Chief Building Official Fred Patch reported that the City of Monticello has been regulating and issuing licenses for outdoor sales and display without the substance of an ordinance for many years. This proposed ordinance would give the City a legal basis for such regulation. Outdoor sales are divided into three classes: .. Temporary outdoor sales and displays are sales and displays conducted by the operators of a legitimate established business, such as sidewalk sales and the like. Such temporary sales and displays would be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days by the issuance of two consecutive 30-day licenses. .. Seasonal outdoor sales/displays are sales and displays conducted by the operators of a legitimate established business, such as garden center sales, and the like. Such seasonal sales and displays would be allowed for up to 120 consecutive days by the issuance of two consecutive 60-day licenses. Page 15 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 .. Itinerant outdoor sales and displays are sales and displays conducted by persons other than the operators of a legitimate established business, such as farm produce sales, Christmas tree sales, and the like. Such itinerant sales and displays would be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days by the issuance of two consecutive 30-day licenses. Patch said that it is the intent of this ordinance to regulate outdoor sales and displays in a manner that is as consistent as possible with the existing practices of the Monticello business community. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY REGULATIONS. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance relating to the dedication of land for park purposes. Applicant City of Monticello. City Planner Steve Grittman reported that the Comprehensive Parks and Pathways Plan includes an implementation recommendation for the collection of fees in lieu of dedication of park land. Rather than base the amount of the fee on the appraised land value, the fee should be collected based upon the number of housing units to be developed in a subdivision. This would bring the fee into compliance with recent Court decisions which require that park dedications be proportionate to the amount of demand on the park system which is generated by the development in question. The value of the land is unrelated (generally) to that proportion. In recent surveys of other area communities, park fees are ranging from $500 per unit to well over $1,000 per unit. The actual amount should be based on the projected cost of building the system and, again, the development's proportion of the demand. We have calculated a projected fee of$750 per unit based on generalized estimates of park acquisition and construction and an estimate that approximately 75% of future park construction will be attributable to new development. This figure may be somewhat conservative. However, it should provide a reasonable starting point for the change in policy. As noted in the attached ordinance, the actual fee would be set by resolution. Therefore, it is expected to be monitored and updated over time. The proposed ordinance eliminates language in the current code regarding the need for appraisals of land value as a prerequisite to establishing the appropriate fee. Dick Frie was concerned that the park dedication requirement was not being analyzed within the context of the entire development fee program. Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . MOTION BY ROGER CARLSON TO ACCEPT AMENDMEN1', Motion died for lack of second. MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE DECISION TO AMEND THE PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING MORE INFORMATION ON COMPARATIVE FEES AND TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPER FEEDBACK. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of City Council request to review additional information in coni unction with consideration ofa zoning text amendment in the I-I (light industrial) zoning district to allow a go-cart traek as a eonditional use, Applicant. Russ and Paula Adamski dba Monticello Roller Rink. Deputy City Administrator JefIO'Neill reported that at the previous meeting of the City Council, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the zoning text amendment necessary to allow a go-cart to operate at the Monticello Roller Rink. Along with the information provided by the staff and Planning Commission, the Council received a request from the applicant that the Planning Commission review additional information regarding site operation that was not available to the Planning Commission at the time of the original deliberation. City Council responded to the applicant's request by sending the item back to the Planning Commission for additional review and consideration, . O'Neill noted that one of the main reasons why the Planning Commission recommended denial ofthe request was the testimony from an adjacent property owner regarding the concern over noise produced by the operation of the go-carts. In response to this testimony, the applicant organized a demonstration of the operation of the facility, which was conducted on May 28, 1998. In attendancc at the demonstration werc Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer, and Dick Frie. In reviewing the demonstration, Steve Grittman reported that the sound generated by the go-carts is considerably less than the sound generated by the nearby freeway. He also noted that when the sound of the go-cart was obstructed by a car or a fence, it almost became inaudible at a distance of 200 ft. Even without the obstruction, the go-cart sound was almost inaudible. Planning Commission is asked to review this additional information and othcr testimony that may be provided by the applicant and consider making a different finding on this matter. Chief Building Official Fred Patch indicated that a decibel level would need to be set to set the standard for the decibel level. Robbie did not think that sound is the issue here. . Mark Petty indicated that a go-cart track is going to have a negative impact on the area, What is a property owner going to think if the land use can be changed so casily. The main concern is to caution the board. You don't want businesses to invest in the area if one can put a conflicting use next door. Will there be a loitering ordinance to protect surrounding areas from mischief? Page 17 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 . Paula Adamski said yes the town is growing and what does the city have to offer families that is fun? We have had a good relationship with the public. Pulling people from other towns for roller skating. We are concerned about neighbors, too. AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MAKE OUTDOOR GO-CART TRACKS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE I-I, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED FOR THIS USE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT, BASED UPON A FINDING TIIAT THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE I-I DISTRICT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES. Voting in favor was Frie and Carlson. Opposed Smith. Motion carried. . MOTION BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RlCHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE A CONDrfIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR GO-CART TRACK IN THE I-I DISTRICT BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE HAS MET OR WILL MEET, WITH APPROPRlATE CHANGES, THE CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING ADEQUA TE SCREENING TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ADEQUATE PARKING '1'0 ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AREA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES. MOTION INCLUDES CONDITIONS BELOW INCLUDING ADDED CONDITION REQUIRING REMOVAL OF TIRES BY NOVEMBER 1, 1998. Voting in favor was Frie and Carslon. Opposed Smith. Motion carried. 1. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REVIEWED YEARLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE. 2. A SOLID 6-FT HIGH WOOD FENCE BE PROVIDED AROUND THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 3. THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT PROVIDES PLANTING MATERIALS OF THE TYPE AND QUANTITY NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE REQUIRED WOOD FENCE AS AN EFFECTIVE SCREEN/BUFFER. SAID LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 4. THE GO-CART TRACK BE SURFACED WITH CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS MATERIAL. 5. NO EXTERIOR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM OR LOUD SPEAKERS BE UTILIZED ON THE SUBJECT SITE. . Page 18 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6/2/98 6. THE PARKING LOT BE IMPROVED SO AS TO PROVIDE 70 PARKING STALLS, TWO OF WHICH MUST BE DISABILITY ACCESSIBLE WITII A 7-FT ACCESS LAND IN BETWEEN. 7. ANY EXPANSION OF USES ON THE SUBJECT SITE SHALL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CUP SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 8. THE SITE PLAN BE REVISED TO INDICATE THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL SITE LIGHTING. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DETAILS REGARDING ALL EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES INCLUDING PHOTOMETRIC ILLUMINATION FIELDS. ALL SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 9. COMMENTS OF OTHER CITY STAFF. 16. Added item: Consideration of Simple Subdivision request submitted by the Monticello Hospital District and Monticello School District. Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill noted that a request for a simple subdivision has been submitted by the School District and Hospital District. The subdivision calls for taking land away from the High School parcel and adding it to the Hospital District site. The proposal makes sense because the land in question is currently separated from the High School site by CSAH 75 and has been leased by the Hospital District for years for parking purposes. The proposed subdivision simply formalizes this arrangement. AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION BY SMITH AND SECONDED BY CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SIMPLE SUBDIVISION. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, meeting was adjourned. C);;f(tJ~ Jeff O'Neill Deputy City Administrator Page 19