Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 02-01-2005 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRlJARY 1st, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, I Joyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Glen Posusta .lefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann Council Liaison: Staff Present: 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order and declared a quorum and noted the absence of Council Liaison Posusta. Mayor Clint Herbst was in attendance representing the City Council on behalf of Liaison Posusta. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesdav. Januarv 4th,2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDA Y, JANUARY 4TH AS AMENDED. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Dragsten requested an update on filling Commissioner Carlson's position. O'Neill responded that at least three applications have come in. It is his understanding that the Mayor and Council will interview for the positions. Mayor Herbst explained that the interview committee for the Commission position would be made up of two Commission members and two Council members. Frie noted that Commissioner Carlson had resigned, with the option to stay on month-to- month. With his resignation, the Commission will lose its Vice Chair. hie indicated that it would be his recommendation that Commissioner Dragsten serve as the Vice Chair, via seniority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER ROD DRAGSTEN AS PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CTTAIR. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . . . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0 I /05 The Commissioners appointed Dragsten and Spartz to serve on the Planning Commission interview committee. Herbst requested that staff to begin the process of setting an interview schedule and contact committee members and applicants aceordingly. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a health clinic. ambulance garage and parking area expansion of the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District. Applicant: Monticello-Rig Lake Hospital District Grittman reviewcd the stafTreport regarding the hospital district's request for concept stage PUD approval. Grittman eXplained that the hospital district is proposing two phases of expansion under the conccpt PUD presented. The first phase consists of an oHice huilding expansion. Grittman noted that the white rectanglc shown on the plans is an exception to the hospital property. That rectangle is currcntly occupied by thrcc single-family homes. Grittman noted that the first phasc expansion requires the vacation of Dayton Street, expansion of parking arcas and the relocation of the ambulance garage. It also relies on the ability to acquire the dental oflice just to the north ofthc current hospital propeliy. The plan also indicatcs that a vacation of Hart Boulevard right of way occur. Grittman noted that the second phase consists of further expansion to thc west, construction of a two-level parking dcck and the vertical expansion of a portion of the hospital from three to six stories. Grittman indicated that at concept stage, Commission is rcquired to look at the flcxibility granted in terms of zoning standards; is thc flexibility given to thc applicant justified hy tangible amenities or design. Grittman stated that fCJr this application, the sharcd parking, vacation of unneeded right of way, compact dcsign, and architecture arc the justifications for increased flexibility in setbacks, parking space, and other considerations. Grittman noted that thc first step in rccommending PUD approval is to determine if the general layout is suHicient to allow applicants to move forward with development stage PUD, which involvcs much more detailed plans. Grittman discussed the Exhibit Z conditions of approval. The conditions included pedestrian walkways and connections through parking areas to activity centers and avoidance of lighting glare onto adjacent properties, particularly in residential areas and along major roadways. Othcr conditions notcd by Grittman included adequate buffering and landscaping between adjaccnt uses. Grittman indicated that Washington and River Strect will take more traffic as a result of this proposal. As such, the increase in traffic along River - 2 - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0 1105 Street is a eoncern. A listed condition of approval is to develop methods to ensure that the majority of traffic gets out to Washington, rather than proceeding along Ri ver. The Washington intersection with County 75 will be a signalized intersection in the future and will eventually proeeed onto Fallon A venue overpass. Grittman also indicated that a landscaping plan showing mitigation of the impact oflarge parking fields be provided at devclopment stage. Grittman referred to the condition that the dental clinic property situation be resolved. Currently, the dental clinic is not a signature party to this application, although their property is included in the concept plan. It is staff s understanding that the hospital district does not have an agreement to purchase the property at this point in time. Grittman stated that a devcIopment stage PUD application will require the signatures of all fee title property owners included in the development. Grittman also noted that Hart Boulevard is still in place to provide access to the clinic. Without acquisition of dcntal clinic, the City cannot vacate that right-of-way. Grittman stated that stail is recommcnding approval with the conditions as noted, and the understanding that approval of the concept stage PUD does not grant any development rights. (:i-rittman reiterated that concept stage serves to provide the applicant with general feedback. . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Chairman Fric requested that Grittman clarify a concept stage approval in terms of the present meeting. Grittman explained that there arc three steps in the Planned Unit Development process; concept, development, and final. The intent of a concept plan is to allow the applicants to bring forward a sketch plan illustrating proposed dcvelopment. Orittman explained that thc intent of concept stage is to raisc any issues associated with the possible development of the proposed projects. It helps to give applicants an undcrstanding of what wi 11 be rcquired of them at the ncxt stagc. It is not represcntative of all the issues that may be present on the development sitc. The in-depth detail and technical information comes at devcIopment stage, the second step. Wayne Nehrenz, 813 Broadway, asked what the purpose of tonight's meeting is in terms of this proposal. He asked if it is to raise issues or open thc door to developmcnt. He inquired if an approval allows the hospital to go on to development stagc. Frie replied that the Commission has three alternatives: approve with comments that the applicant needs to address at the next stage, deny based on a finding that thc concept doesn't comply and there may bc concerns enough to justify denial, or table rcquiring further study. . Nehrenz statcd that his first concern is that thc City's zoning ordinance states that the applicant is supposed to work with surrounding property owners. Hc indicated that the public notice came from the City. It seems to him that the hospital did not work with property owners via thc ordinance. Nchrenz noted that he cannot get to his house if Dayton - ;-) - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0 1 /05 Street is closed, as his driveway is off Dayton. Nchrenz exprcssed concern with where thc ambulance garage is located in terms of sirens and traffic. Additionally, he questioned why the applicant would choose to build a parking lot right in front of the river. Nehrenz noted that it appcars that the hospital staff use the school parking lot. Nchrenz also indicated that he is concerned about safety in the area. He stated that he would like the hospital district to talk to property owners about their plans at this point. Dean Calpas, owner of Monticello Dental Group, addressed the Commission. Calpas explained that at this point, there is not a resolution to the dental clinic situation. Calpas stated that it is his understanding that the hospital has approached the City regarding eminent domain and condemnation procedures. Calpas explained that there is an agreement in place to allow the orderly acquisition of the clinic parcel. The presented plan accelerates that time frame, in violation of the casement agreement. Calpas expressed his concern that the timeframe could have serious impacts on his business. . Frie noted that condition was one of his questions and asked Calpas for further information. Calpas indicated that the hospital had made a good faith offer on this property to the property owner, Doctor Bauer, based on appraisals. At that time, an agreement was made on the prices and the parties agreed on a time line. Calpas stated the question is that the timetable has been moved up about one year. The agreement was that the earliest date of propeliy availability was July 1 S\ 2006. Calpas noted that his rclocation plans were based on that timetable. The decision to move up the timetable could affect his patients and employees negatively. frie asked Calpas ifhe had seen Dr. Bauer's Ictter in which Dr. Bauer seems to imply that the hospital's offer was not made in good faith. Frie also asked Calpas ifhe would need a year to arrange relocation. Calpas stated that the hospital's intended use is the hest use of the property. He cannot comment on the good faith offer; however he noted that the hospital initiated the timetahle of the agreement. Frie statcd that he is frustrated that the hospital district seeks to use the City as Icverage. Fric stated that he is not supportive of condemnation. O'Neill indicated that the hospital has asked the City Council to consider the matter at the Fcbruary 14th meeting. O'Neill stated that the emincnt domain topic isn't germanc to the Planning Commission's considcration. O'Neill noted that a conccpt is only a concept, its timetable and site control should not bc main factor in Commission's decision; Council will have to make property decisions. Herbst indicated that he had heard discussion on the topic of eminent domain, although he was not aware that it was on the Council agenda. Calpas responded to Frie ' s earlier question ffi1d stated that avcrage dental clinic construction is 15 months. The financing for the project moves along with that timetable. . Bruce Hamond, Chairman of the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital Board, addressed thc Commission. IIamond indicated that he would providc further information on the proposal -t - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 and address some of the concerns that had been discussed. Hamond indicated that the hospital's intent for this meeting is to present the concept drawings and to allow the Planning Commission and public to discuss the scope of the proposal. Hamond apologized if the hospital did not communicate with neighboring property owners. Hamond stated that for the last three years to eight years, there has been discussion with different parties about the development of the clinic parcel. The growth of the community and the need for additional physicians has caused the hospital to outgrow their current space. Hamond explained that early last year, the hospital completed a capacity evaluation to evaluate care services and the financial situation of the hospital. The presented findings indicated that expansion was needed. . Hamond noted that the easement agreement with Dr. Bauer was completed in 2003. There had been meetings before and after, and the language allows the hospital the exclusive first right of refusal. The dates identilled in the agreement were put there by the hospital to coincide with what was expected to be the development timetable at that time. The agreement also included a sunset provision. However, there is a difference of opinion on the language. lIamond stated that the hospital is proceeding with this proposal on behalf of the six communities served, with the intent to serve the community and support the hospital's physicians. Proper facilities and state of the art equipment arc important to that mission. The concept proposed encompasses discussion with the City on the mnount of required parking to support the building. Regarding the ambulance garage, Hamond stated that dispatching comes from the emergency room. The intent is not to have ambulances dispatched from the location. Hamond noted that they will look at that location in relationship to comments. Hamond noted that Dr. Calpas has practiced in the existing clinic for eleven years. It is the hospital's intent and desire that he continue to be able do so. The hospital wants to assist him in doing that regardless of a time table. llamond noted that at some point, Calpas will have to relocate. Hamond stated that the hospital is willing discuss options to help Dr. Calpas, evcn though primary negotiations are with Dr. Bauer. Ron Smith addressed the Commission as the representative of Frauenshuh Companies, the clinic developer. Smith also introduced Bob Verstraete of BWBR Architects, project architect. Smith stated that it is their goal to present the concept plan, recognizing that the development is a long process with everyone doing their best to facilitate expansion. . Dan Secor, 1005 West River Street, explained to the Commission that his first concern with the project is the entrances, exits and the parking. He is concerned about River Street being a major thoroughfare and the crossing at Washington and River. He noted that the area still contains a residential neighborhood and parle ~ /) - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 Nehrenz raised questions on the hospital's proposed clinic. He noted that the clinic will be a leased commercial facility located on hospital's property and inquired what the reason is for it to be connected to the hospital. Smith answered that dozens of hospitals have closed over the last few decades. A majority ofthose did not have clinics attached. Another reason for the clinic location is to prevent patients from having to walk long distances between the hospital and clinic. Their primary concern in determining that location is families and patients. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Carlson asked Grittman ifhe has looked at the intersection of River and Washington for tra1Tic concerns. Carlson referred to previous expansion plans and related discussions on traffic from a proposed ramp. At that time, it was determined that traffic should flow onto Broadway rather than River. Grittman responded that staiThaven't looked at it in detail to discuss design solutions. Grittman noted that is why the conditions requested that it be addressed in detail at development stage. Grittman did explain that medians currently allow only right outs onto 75 and that Washington will be a controlled intersection. Carlson asked Grittman for other ideas on how to discourage traffic on River Street. Grittman replied that one solution is to curve the road onto Washington and then break River Street, although that may prescnt property issues. Dragsten commented on the tra1Tic issue as well. Dragsten also referred to the hospital's provided narrative, noting that the long range plan takes out three homes on the south side of River Street. If the hospital does add parking ramp, the last two remaining homes become a concern. These two remaining homcs would be next to a large building and parking ramp. Dragsten encouraged the hospital to purchase those, as well. Hamond responded that thc hospital has contacted them and it is his understanding that they did not wish to sell upon that contact. Dragsten questioncd thc ambulance garage use. Hamond stated that the current and proposed garage is used to house extra vehicles and general storage. Oragsten notcd that a five~story building expansion had been approved in 1998 and now the proposal is for a six story building. Verstraete confirmed that thc sccond phasc of thc proposcd expansion would includc a thrce-story vertical portion of the hospital, shown in yellow on the plan. Dragsten indicated that he would prefer that the City not be involved in any kind of condemnation proceedings. . Hilgart asked for a timeframe on groundbreaking. Smith stated that assuming property control and appropriate approvals, it would bc early July. Smith notcd that without approvals, that timeline is undetermined. lie indicated that the development is bcing driven by thc rccruitment cycle of physicians. Smith referred to the demand for healthcare in thc area, and explaincd that people will go clsewhere if service needs aren't met. - (j - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01 !OS Hilgart asked if the vacation of Dayton Strect is necessary. Smith explained that a great amount of site design analysis had been completed by City staff and the project architects. Due to the slope ffild parking requirements, this configuration seemed to he the best alternative. If the clinic moved further to west side, the logistics of moving patients back and forth between buildings and parking werc a concern. This arrangement seems to be the least disruptive for the patients. Parking requirements for facility make it the hest solution. Smith noted that Washington as the controlled intersection also validates this. Hilgart asked if the request for variance from parking standards is common and acceptable. Grittman eXplained that the City has heen relatively flexible on parking stall size and that this plan is fairly consistent with what has been allowcd. Frie asked Hamond if the projcct is funded by tax dollars or the hospital. Hamond stated that the funding is coming from thc developer for the structures which the hospital docs not own; taxes would fund the structures which the hospital wi II own. Herhst stated that the new structure it will be a taxahle building for the City. . Frie statcd that they have dealt with hospital proposals before, and parking is always an issue. Prie noted that previously, the hospital's CEO stated that she did not support a parking ramp. Frie askcd why the currcnt proposal shows a ramp. Hamond replied that the CEO has not eh~mged hcr view. He cxplained that thc timing of the parking ramp is slated for when the site is at maximum development.l-lamond stated that a financial representative has advised the hospital that the ramp is detrimental to assets until the maximum build-out point. The ramp will be privately funded hy the new tenants. Frie addressed parking fields, inquiring about shuttling and drop-off areas. Hamond stated that within a short period of time, the MRI facility will be within the hospital. There will be a drop 011 area for that facility. The hospital is also looking at shuttling options. Verstraete illustrated the drop-off location and explained that parking and salety issues would be addresscd in greater detail in thc ncxt phase. Frie asked what would happen to the present clinic structure. llammond stated that it will remain in placc; the hospital is in the process of looking at future uses. Generally spcaking, it is proposed to he hospital expansion area or leased facilities. Frie askcd if there is an alternate plan, or will the hospital take Commission's input and move from there. Smith statcd that they will work from Commission's comments. The proposal plan presentcd represents three months worth of work and refinement. . Frie asked hospital reprcsentatives what percentage of the projcct they can complete without complete sitc control. Smith explained that 90(% ofthe proposcd cxpansion can be completed. They cannot dcvelop the last phase without the 10%. - 7 - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 Frie alerted Verstraete to his previous recommendations that architecture compliment existing structures. Verstrate indicated that he shares that concern, and believes that it has improved. Ilamond stated that the idea is that the clinic extcrior design and coloration is intended to blend with the west wing of the hospital. l-Iilgart asked if the lirst phase of the proposed expansion as presented could be completed without the dental clinic. Smith statcd that it could not. Smith explained that the three residcntial parcels will be needed for the second phase of proposed expansion. Frie inquired if a 6~story building would be allowable in the PZM Zoning District. Grittman stated that the flexibility of the PUD would take that into account. frie asked if the proposal complies with the comp plan. Grittman stated that the comp plan calls for the continuation of the predominant use in the existing corc city area. G-rittman did note that the comp plan calls for the creation of an edge between residential and institutional uses. Frie stated that it is his opinion that the issues relatcd to the rcquest are as follows: a. b. e. . d. c. f. Impact on adjoining properties Traffic concerns - visual, short and long term impacts, River Street Proximity and location of parking lots Lighting Safety for patients mId cmployecs, especially seasonally Communication with surrounding residents and businesses Frie stated that he believes the hospital should refinc their plans, and allow the City to review those plans in relationship to those items and the outlined conditions. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE TO TABLE THE APPLICATION TO PERMIT FURTHER CITY REVIEW AND REfINEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLANS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. Prior to a vote, Dragsten asked Frie ifhe wanted all thosc issues resolved prior to development. Frie stated that was correct. Dragsten commented that all of those things will have to be addressed in a review of development stage PUD plans. Frie asked Grittman if in fact, those items can be refincd via their development stage application. Grittman stated that it would be staffs perspcctive that those issues would bc addressed with thcir development stage request. Further, it would be staff's expectation that all of those issues raised would be resolved. The detailed planning required by the development stage application will help outline details. . Herbst agreed with Dragsten and Grittman's analysis. He noted that the Commission can always table the proposal for further review at the next stage. - 8 - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0]/05 Frie noted for the record that it should be understood by the applicant that the stated issues should all be addressed before coming forward with development stage plans. Spartz stated his concern that there may be other issues that have not been addressed. Smith indicated that they see planning and propcrty resolutions as parallel processes, along with the possibility of eminent domain. lIe stated that he understands that the aforementioned issues will need to be addressed at next application. Frie noted that the Commission is only advisory to the Council. However, he noted for the record that the Commission does not support or favor eminent domain in this process. Carlson inquired, if according to what is in Dr. Bauer's Ictter, eminent domain can go ahead of that agreement to make it null and void. Herbst stated that the City Attorney is looking at that issue. Ilerbst stated that he does not believe this purpose is a good use of eminent domain. He stated that Council will work hard to find an alternate solution. Smith restated that the eminent domain discussion is inappropriate at this time. All parties are working diligently to resolve this issue. It is the applicant's viewpoint that they have fulfilled the requirement for concept review. . Dr. Calpas again addressed the Commission, stating that he does not have an objection to the concept stage approval. He clarified that he does not want to stall the process, but wanted to provide input as far as current property relationships. With no vote on the previous motion, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE COMMENTS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND THOSE ITEMIZED IN TI IE FEBRUARY 1sT, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BASED UPON TIlE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S COMPRE1IENSIVE PLAN AND LONG- TERM DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR TI-IE AREA. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. Dragsten asked if the motion should include the notation that the Commission recommends that the City not be involved in eminent domain. Spartz stated that believes it should be on record. Ilowever, he agrees with Mr. Smith and does not want to include it within the motion, as he does not believe Planning Commission should take a position on erninent domain as related to the concept plan. Dragstcn agreed. MOTION CARRIED 3-2, CARLSON AND FRJE DISSENTING. . Grittman made one point to hospital residents and neighbors, stating that this rccommendation will go on to Council. Additionally, a development stage PUD application will require another round of public hearing notices. - ~) - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0] /05 6. Consideration of a request to rcview a commercial site plan fix conformance to a previously approved Development Stage pun and Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Travel Center. Grittman reviewcd the statT report, explaining that the applicant had originally proposed and received approval on a development stage PUD, preliminary plat, and final plat for the Monticello Travcl Centcr. Reccntly, thc Commission had also approved a concept stage PUD which included these parcels and incorporated the rest of the block. Grittman noted the second request was a separate approval proccss that has not moved to development stage at this time. The applicant has indicated that it is his intent to move forward with a portion of the original PUD approval. Grittman statcd that the Commission is requested to determinc if the proposed plan is consistent with the originally approved PUD. Grittman reviewed the changcs between the original PUD and the proposed plan, citing the center drive aisle, the replacement of the car wash with a lease facility and the lack of a development plan for thc east portion of the development. Grittman explained that any approval should be conditioned on the submission of final development plans illustrating the ultimate development of the outlot arcas. Grittman explained that a final stage application will show the integration and relationship between sites. Grittman stated that the parking conditionidentificd for Subway is intended to ensure that adequate parking is provided as part of final site dcsign. With those comments, Grittman stated that staff believe that the proposed plan is relatively consistent with the previous approval. Grittman reiteratde that as with any PUD, staff would ask the Commission to condition thc approval on the applicant providing a Jinal PUD plan. [<'rie asked if Commission could require a parking plan that addressed deficiencics of the previous PUD. Frie questioned whether this proposal should be held responsible for the Subway deficiency. Urittman stated that onc of the issues on the original approval was the mixed uses and the parking and circulation needs. Frie statcd that in looking through the minutes for that approval, staff had previously stated that there is cnough parking. Grittman stated that the subsequent expansion of the restaurant was based on the additional parking shown on the PUD, which was to be constructed as part of the overall PUD plan. Spartz inquired whether the Cedar Street right~of-way vacation illustrated as part of the reccnt PU D application would still be needed. Grittman stated that the area is outside the boundary of the proposed plan and original illustrated area. The approved concept plan is not moving forward at this time, so a vacation has not occurred. Dragsten asked how the plan would address signage, landscaping, and other elements controlled by a PUD request. Grittman stated that the original PUD would control all those factors. Urittman explained that the only question is ifthc presented proposed plan is consistent with the original. Grittman pointed out that the proposed plan represents only a phase of the development project. The appl icant would still have to ii)lIow the original outside of the changes as noted. - I 0 ~ . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0 1105 Dan Mielke, addressed the Commission representing the Monticello Travel Center. Mielke stated that the primary purpose of bringing the plan forward was to update the Commission on immediate development plans. Mielke stated that they are not saying that they will not proceed with the balance of development as originally presented. At this time, Mielke explained that they are just showing what will be completed as part of this phase. Mielke indicated that the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill proposed for this phase is working within the Apri I 200 I approval for driveways, signage, and other details. Mielke pointed out that the replacement of the car wash facility has resulted in a largcr parking field for the development. Mielkc responded to the listed conditions of approval, noting that he had spoken with O'Neill earlier that day and they were in agreement on the following. In rcgards to the first condition requiring a new plan illustrating the entire Travel Center site as currently proposed, Mielke stated that they will use the original PUD plan and overlay the proposed plan for this portion of the site. Mielkc stated that an easement had been granted to Subway for 8 parking stalls near the Ultra Lube, which meets the parking requirement identified as item two. Mielke indicated that he has no problem eliminating the "future drive", item number three. In terms of condition four, Mielke stated that he understood that should the uses and arrmlgement of development on the outlots vary from the original PUD plan, a development stage plan will he required, which will involve an amendment to PUD. . Nick Speredis, architect for the proposed DQ Grill and Chill, presented sample site images to the Commission. Hilgart asked if Grittman agreed with Mielke's comments and whether he is comfortable with an approval based on those comments. Urittman stated that he is comfortable with a finding that it is consistent with original plan and with conditions as noted. Dragsten commented that he feels the restaurant will be an excellent addition to the community and inquired about a project timeframe. Speredis replied that the schedule is modified to each site. For this site, they are planning to submit huilding documents for permit by Fehruary 15th. With approvals, they could start construction by March 151h. Frie asked if Grittman had seen signage and lighting proposed for the restaurant. Grittman stated that he had not, but other staflhad. Grittman noted that a tall pylon had been approved as part of the original PUD. StafTwill review all signage and lighting for compl iance. Carlson inquired as to the location of the pylon sign. Grittman stated that it was along the north property line. . Carlson commented on the arrangement of parking, drive aisles and building faces. Carlson inquired if it is acceptahle for drive-up traffic to go right by the restaurant's front door. Speredis responded that this type of DQ is more of a sit-down restaurant, with approximately 70% of business as sit-down. In most cases, stacking will not be an issue, although a parking area has he en provided to allow traffic to pull forward. - II - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/0 1/05 Spartz asked how this approval impacts the concept stage plan that was approved in 2004. Mielke stated that at this time, they can't dictate what occurs on the north property; they can only work off the 2001 plan to move forward. If a development plan moves forward on the nOlih parcel, he stated that he is willing to work with them. Mielke noted that the 2004 concept never moved to development approval. Carlson asked how many leasable square feet would be available with this plan. Mielke responded that 2000 square feet would be available; the car wash was larger. He explained that there was an overall parking increase to 19 spaces over the 12 existing. Carlson inquired whether a sidewalk separated the two parking rows on the proposed plan. Mielke stated he believes it is, but he will not be installing it that way as he would rather have double spaces f()r towing vehicles. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO FIND T1IA T THE REVISED PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLAN WITH THE CHANGES AS NOTED, AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLAN PROCEED TO FINAL STAGE APPROVAL OF THE DQ GRILL AND CHILL DEVELOPMENT SITE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS LISTED BELOW. . 1. The "possible future drive" is to be eliminated from the revised site plan, unless the revised plan includes a development proposal for the adjacent north parcel. 2. 'rhe revised plan is to show a development plan for the Outlots consistent with the original Development Stage PUD, or: · Should the developer choose to vary the development of the outlots from the original PUD, a formal application for amendment to PUD will be required. · If the developer choose to prepare a revised plan showing no development plan for the outlots, future development of those outlots will require a Development Stage PUD application. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Consideration of a request to review building elevations and landscape plans for conformance to a previously approved Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Retail Center. Grittman provided an overview of the revisions to building and landscape plans for the proposed Targct and Home Depot stores ior the Monticello Retail Centcr site. . Grittman explained that the loading area for Home Depot is in the northwest corner of the site, where truck traffic will circulate to the front of the site and exit to ih street. The improved landscaping treatment to this area will mitigate potential negative impacts to the adjacent St. Benedict's facility. ~ I ~ - . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 Additionally, Grittman noted that the Homc Depot facility consists of colored building panels. They have added cornice capping to the panels in traditional corporate colors. Orittman stated that staffs concern is the rear portion ofthc building due to exposure to County 75. The applicant has added a mirroring of the front panel design to address that issue, as wcll as significant planting and benning on north side. Grittman commented that the Target facility illustrates the corporation's new contemporary design, although they have also added a panel design on side and rcar. The architecture also provided for diffcring wall places to break up the long building wall facades. Additionally, an arca oflandscaping and arbor design has been provided in the store's front area. Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval based on the conditions as outlined within the staff report. . Steve Broyer addressed the Commission, representing Ryan Comp<mies. Broyer stated that they have been working with staff to meet expectations for the development. In response the the conditions, Broycr stated that Target will be adding the required signagc, and that they are working with fIome Depot on items two, three and lour. Broyer stated that numbers five and six can be accomplished with finallmldscape design plans. Finally, Rroyer indicated that he had met with WSB regarding the design for Outlot D. Due to FIlA site triangles lor ih Street, more right of way will be required in that area. Ryan will work with City statlon an appropriate plan fc)r that area within FHA guidelines. Spartz noted that Outlot D is a unique area, serving as a visual entrance point to the city. Carlson asked who will own Outlot D. Broyer stated that Ryan will retain ownership of the property and maintain it. Herbst stated that a pedestrian plaza is unrealistic due to the freeway exposure. llerbst also noted that it is important that Ryan own and maintain the Outlot. Dragsten stated that the Home Depot seems to have improved, although he questioned whether the Target building provided the accentuations Commission was looking for. Grittman stated that the break-up of buildings planes and addition of wall panels is acceptable in terms of the architectural style of the building. Dragsten stated that he had hopcd lor additional detai ling along the top of the building. Patch noted to the Commission that the Target building will be closer to the railroad than the required 60 feet, which is acceptable in this circumstance, and that loading docks will be at 90 degree to property line and fully screened. I3royer confirmed the statements wcre accuratc. Fric noted that future phases will still requirc developmcnt stage approval at Commission. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 'fl-IE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLANS, WITH THE CONDrrIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN EXIIIRIT Z, - 1:-1 - . Plmming Commission Minutes 02/01/05 CONSTITUTE AN INCREASED LEVEL OF DESIGN AND AMENITIES SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY THE SITE FOR PUD APPROVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the proposed Modification of the Redevelopment Plml for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. 1 and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-33, consistent with the City Comprehensive Plml. Koropchak presented the staff report, stating that the creation of a TIF District in this area is contingent of the Planning Commission making a finding that the 'I'll' District would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Koropchak provided basic background on the project and the Redevelopment Project Area. Koropchak explaincd that the Council established the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Area in 1982, the City's first TIF district. The HRA and Council have the right to establish additional TIF districts within that area. The districts provide for redevelopment, housing, economic districts, and rehabilitation. The Project Area has been amended since that time for other projects. . Koropchak referred to the supporting data, noting that the County has 30 days to makc comment on the potential district. She noted that at this time, the Planning Commission is not approving the project, instead thcy are askcd to make a finding that the request is consistent with the comp plan and proper zoning. Koropchak stated that the proposcd expansion will also require a conditional use permit. The company cannot get a permit until the appropriate approvals occur. Frie inquircd what the TIF district was being established for. Koropchak stated that it would be to provide assistance for ml cxpansion that would, by law for business subsidy, crcate jobs. Frie commented that the information provided on wages and jobs is very positive. Frie asked how many jobs would bc created. Koropchak stated that this will be the company's regional headqualiers with an ultimate goal of 50-60 new and existing jobs. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART '1'0 APPROVE A RESOLUTION FINDING 'rHE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVEI,OPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MINNESOTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISIIMENT OF THE TAX INCREMEMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-33 CONSISTENT WITH TilE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDeD BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. . - It -- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 9. Public Hearing - Considcration of an amcndment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regarding the replacement of billboard signage. Applicant: City of Monticello Staff requested that the item be tabled until fllrther development of amendment language. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS TEN TO TABLE THE CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BILLBOARD SIGNAGE TO ALA TER COMMISSION DATE AS REQUIRED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SP ARIZ. M<JrION CARRIED. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reCjuest for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and considcration of a revised Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village, a 242 unit residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadow Creck Corporation. Staff indicated that tabling of this item had been requested due to a need for further review. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE 'fIlE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, A 242 UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO THE MARCH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 11. Consideration of Finding that City Sale of Land for School/Community Meeting Space Use is Consistent with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Grittman provided an overview of the stailreport, stating that the comprehensive plan indicates that the area on which the proposed school would be located is guided for "Civic/Institutional" uses. In the plan, Civic/Institutional uses are listed as: municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), public meeting spaecs, community activity spaces, educational facilities, churches, outdoor gathering spaces. Grittman stated that as Swan River is clearly an educational facility, staff would recommend a finding that the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Herbst noted that the report incorrectly cites attendance at 115 students. Ultimately, the total student population will by 140 students, plus pre-school. Frie inquired whether the intended educational usage justifies the sale of city property as put forth in the eomp plan. Grittman stated that the use is educational or institutional in nature - IS - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 02/01/05 and that prior to sale, the finding is a legal requirement. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO FIND THAT THE PROPOSED SCHOOL/MEETING SPACE USE AT THIS LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TI IE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. 12. Discussion Item - Area Planning Effort and Alternative Urban Area Review Grittman stated that the City hass currently undertaken an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) process for the proposed Heritage Development site. The AUAR process is an alternative to the intensive Environmental Impact Statement. Examples of other communities' AUAR projects and an actual AUAR report for the City of Bloomington were distributed to Commission members as reference tools. Grittman stated that staff would keep Planning Commission updated on the progress of the process. 13. Discussion Item - Open and Outdoor Storage Meeting Update Patch provided an overview of the work session on this topie, indicating that it was well attended by representatives of the industrial businesses. Patch stated that progress had been made in identifying the unique situations which the ordinance might need to encompass. Grittman will be drafting proposed amendment language out of the recommendations. A secondary meeting will be set up in early March for the attendees to review the proposed amendment. The item will most likely come before the Commission at the April meeting. 14. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. u - II; ~