Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-22-1992 (Special Meeting) . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 22, 1992 - 6 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, and Richard Carlson Members Absent: Dan McConnon Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, at 6:02 p.m. 2. Consideration of approvinq preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids subdivision. Applicant, Investors Toqether. Jeff 0' Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the background to the preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids residential subdivision. A. Gradinq and Drainage Plan. The developer's engineer to sign off on the retaining wall. B. Storm Sewer System. The storm sewer pipe overs~z~ng and extension to the south property line is to be paid for by the City of Monticello. C. Townhouse Association. The agreement is forthcoming, as it is to be similar to the MacArlund Plaza Townhouse Association. It needs to be reviewed prior to final plat approval. D. Developers Agreement. Currently being finalized. It will include grading/retaining wall performance bond. E. Park Dedication. Park dedication requirements have already been completed with the platting of the East View plat. F. Parking Area Screening. The parking area to the south is to be screened from the view of the Peterson property. The developers are to work with Mr. Peterson to come up with a parking area screen that is acceptable to both parties. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. The developers are to post a bond to cover the costs of the site grading, retaining wall, and screening requirements. The retaining wall plans are to be signed off by an engineer. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Commission members. Page 1 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 . There being no further comments from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the preliminary plat contingent on the following: 1. The preliminary plat should be amended to include comments made by the City Engineer in his letter of June 10, 1992. The final plat shall not be granted until this item is complete. 2. The final plat will be contingent upon the completion of a development agreement which would include the developer providing a performance bond in an amount equal to complete phase I site improvements as defined by the City Engineer. 3. Final plat approval will be contingent upon preparation and recording of townhouse association bylaws. Bylaws must be consistent with the city ordinance governing planned unit development bylaws. 4. An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent property to the east to use the Battle Rapids drive area must be recorded along with the final plat. . 5. Final plat approval is contingent on the developer paying Ci ty expenses in excess of the preliminary plat fee (amount not known at this time). Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of a variance request allowinq development of a PUD (townhome development) containinq an area of less than 3 acres. Applicant, Investors Toqether. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that a planned unit development must contain at least 3 acres. The City Planner, David Licht, has recommended that the City grant the variance to this provision and also consider deleting this requirement from our ordinance. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. . There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to grant a variance which would allow development of a PUD consisting of an area less than 3 acres and authorize City staff to prepare an amendment eliminating the requirement. Motion is based on the Page 2 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 finding that the variance is necessary to allow the use of the land for townhouse development under the provisions of the R-2 zoning district. The conditional use permit would be valid and the site plan would be consistent with City requirements. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of a conditional use permit request which would allow development of townhouses in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Investors Toqether. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that a conditional use permit is required in an R-2 (single and two- family residential) zone to allow development of more than eight townhouse units. The developers are proposing to build four separate townhouse buildings consisting of three 4-unit buildings and one 2-unit building. Townhouse development in the R-2 zone must meet the standards defined in the PUD requirement as follows: Comprehensive plan and sanitary sewer plan consistency, common open space, townhome association, staging of public and common open space, density, utilities, roadways, landscaping, urban development and availability of public service, townhouse, and setbacks. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, she closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the conditional use permit application allowing a townhouse development in an R-2 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance must be granted to the requirement that a pun encompass an area of at least 3 acres. 2. The final plat must be approved and recorded, and all conditions associated with the final plat must be complete. Items relating to the final plat as noted in the previous agenda item are as follows: a. The preliminary plat should be amended to include comments made by the City Engineer in his letter of June IO, 1992. Final plat approval shall not be granted until this item is complete. b. Final plat approval will be contingent on completion of a development agreement which would include the developer providing a Page 3 special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 . performance bond in an amount equal to complete phase I site plan improvements as defined by the City Engineer. c. Final plat approval will be contingent on the preparation and recording of townhouse association bylaws. Bylaws must be consistent with the city ordinance governing planned unit development bylaws. d. An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent property to the east to use the Battle Rapids drive area must be recorded along with the final plat. e. Final plat approval is contingent on the developer paying City expenses in excess of the preliminary plat fee (amount not known at this time). . The motion is based on the finding that a townhome development at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and regulations governing planned unit developments. The development is consistent with the character and associated land uses identified in the R-2 zone. The development will have direct access to a county road; therefore, traffic impact on adjoining R-l uses will be minimized. Therefore, the development is consistent with the geography of the area. The need for this type of use has been sufficiently demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, requested that items #5 and #6 be considered at the same time. She stated that she would listen to comments made during the public hearing of the upcoming agenda items but would not be voting due to a conflict of interest. 5. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of a previously-approved conditional use permit. Applicant, Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex. AND 6. Consideration of a variance request to allow less than the minimum off-street parking spaces. Applicant, Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex. . Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the developer's request to amend a condition of their conditional use permit which was granted on August 12, 1991. The condi tion they would like amended is condition #4, which states that tithe parking requirements are based on retail use of the structure only. Restaurant uses only allowed with an amendment to the conditional use permit." Page 4 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 . The example that was used to determine the parking space shortage was as follows: A 4,000 sq ft restaurant with a 3,000 sq ft eating/dining area and 1,000 sq ft of kitchen/food preparation area would require a total of 88 off-street parking spaces. The 88 required restaurant parking spaces minus the 20 retail parking spaces already provided would create a variance of 68 off-street parking spaces. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Mooney, part owner/developer of the Sixth Street Annex building, explained that the developers and realtors have received some requests for restaurant space. The requests have ranged from a l,OOO sq ft take-out restaurant to a 4,000 sq ft sit-down restaurant. The revised site plan shows some additional parking spaces but is still be short of the required number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Mooney reminded Planning Commission members that they hope that the parking lot would be full at all times; but in all reality, there is a good chance that the parking lot would not be full during most hours of operation. The developers are proposing that the operation of the businesses within the Sixth Street Annex would be very similar to the operations of the Maus Foods store. . Judy Fleming and Patty Olson of Edina Realty stated that some of the prospective tenants they have spoken with would be leasing space for a restaurant. It would most likely be a 2,500 sq ft sit-down restaurant rather than a 4,000 sq ft sit- down restaurant. The realtors requested that a cap be set on the maximum number of off-street parking spaces that they would be allowed to be short. A 2,500 sq ft restaurant would require a total of 55 off- street parking spaces, and a 4,000 sq ft restaurant would require a total of 88 off-street parking spaces. O'Neill suggested that City staff go back to the consulting planner and research other communities to see if parking requirements could be less with these types of businesses grouped in a common area. Our ordinance currently requires retail businesses to have one parking space per 200 sq ft of building area. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning Commission members. . Page 5 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 Planning Commission members felt uneasy about the high deficit of off-street parking spaces with this proposal. It was their feeling that we should look to our consulting planner for options that might be available to the City prior to making a decision on this. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to table item #5, consideration of a request by Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex to amend a condition of a previously-approved conditional use permit, and also to table item #6, consideration of a variance request by Hillside Partnership/Sixth Street Annex to allow less than the minimum number of off-street parking spaces, until more information is received from the consulting planner, hopefully by the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 1992, at 7 p.m. Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart. Abstaining: Cindy Lemm. 7. Consideration of a zoninq ordinance amendment which would allow certain commercial buildinqs located in a PZM zone to qualify to follow siqn requirements pertaininq to buildinqs in commercial zones. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. AND 8. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a siqn system for a buildinq with 3 or more business uses but which, by qenerally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shoppinq center or shoppinq mall. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. AND 9. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 100 sq ft maximum wall siqn square footaqe. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 25 sq ft maximum pylon siqn square footage, and to allow more than the maximum 16-ft pylon siqn heiqht. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance amendment which would allow buildings in a PZM zone to qualify for the same sign requirements as in the B-2, B-3, B-4, I-I, and I-2 zoning districts. The sign options that are available in these zones are wall signs up to 300 sq ft in area or 20%, whichever is less, and a pylon sign with a maximum square footage of 25 sq ft and maximum height of 16 ft. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. Judy Fleming and Patty Olson of Edina Realty indicated that there are Maple Grove business owners that are now seriously considering locating in Monticello and that we should amend our sign regulations to reflect the changes within the businesses as they exist today. Page 6 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 . Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members were very uncomfortable with amending the square footage and height requirements of the sign ordinance. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to: A. amend the zoning ordinance to allow certain commercial buildings located in the PZM zone to qualify to follow sign requirements pertaining to buildings in commercial zones. The motion is based on the finding that the PZM zone is a transition area between commercial and residential uses. Allowing intensification of sign systems in the PZM zone along the perimeter of commercial areas is consistent with the purpose and is consistent with the geography and character of the area. The amendment as proposed will not result in proliferation of business signs within residential areas; . B. approve the conditional use permit request subject to the revision of the sign plan to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Motion is based on the finding that the sign system as proposed is consistent with the requirements set forth by ordinance. The signs are oriented toward a commercial area and are away from residential areas; therefore, the sign system is consistent with the geography and character of the area; C. deny the variance request allowing both a pylon sign and a 300 sq ft sign area based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated; therefore, to grant the variance would impair the intent of the ordinance and set a negative precedent; D. deny a 25-ft variance to the sign area requirement and deny a 2-ft variance to the sign height requirement. This motion is based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated; therefore, to grant the variance would impair the intent of the ordinance and set a negative precedent. . Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson. Abstaining: Cindy Lemm. Page 7 . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 6/22/92 Due to the topography of the area, there is little exposure of the proposed signage to any residential use. 10. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ GarY~derSOn Zoning Administrator Page 8