Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-02-2005 . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: Ollie Koropchak, Fred Patch, Angela Schumann, John Simola, and Steve Grittman - NAC I . Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and Deputy Administrator O'Neill. 2. Approval ofthe minutes of the re~uJar Planning. Commission meeting held Tuesday, July 5th, 2005. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDA Y, JULY 5th, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration ofaddin~ items to the agenda. Dragsten inquired about the timeframe for consideration of Taco John's conditional use perm it, in relationship to the 60-day rule. Grittman answered that staff had been informed hy the applicant that the project was on hold at this time and that they had requested the item to be tabled indefinitely. At the time the applicant is ready to proceed, the City may require a new application. 4. Citizen comments. Sonya Kleinbeck, 710 West 5th Street, addressed thc Commission regarding her concern about Professional Broker's Realty's request for CUP. Chairman Frie noted that Kleinbeck would be able to COll1mcnt on the matter during the public hearing for that item. 5. Continued Public Hearing.. Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage.Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman reported that the IDC Committee had met earlier that day and had recommended tabl ing ofthis itcm as they belicve it needs fwiher research. . Frie asked who had called for or attended thc IDC meeting. Grittman reported that Ollie Koropchak typically attends that meeting representing the City. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . Bill Tapper, owner of Generaux Wood Products and the former H Window building, indicated to the Commission that the IDC felt the proposed ordinance was too suhjective. The 1DC had recommended tabling to request further clarifications. Tapper stated that his major personal concern with the proposed amendment item is screening that it should be more tightly specified. He stated that he doesn't object to the fundamental principles of the ordinance, but it needs to be tested against current situations to determine if it is practical. If not, it eould create potential problems, especially related to differing zoning districts. Additionally, Tapper stated that he wou]d like to see the ordinance include the issue of dumpster screening. Frie asked ifmembers ofthe IDC had been involved in the ad hoc committee that diseussed the proposed amendment . Jay Morrell, 140] Fallon Avenue, stated that there had been two meetings held since the Commission's last discussion on th is topie. Morrell felt there was not adequate representation at the second meeting. Morrell also expressed concern regarding who was invited to the meetings. Morrell stated that in particular, he has an issue regarding the 1-2 district. Morrell stated that currently, the existing 1-2 areas are the only areas zoned 1-2 in the City. As such, the screening requirements listed in the proposed code refer only to those existing 1-2 areas, which are in the old industrial park. Morrell's stated that the industrial park was there first. lIe indicated that he can't believe that the south was ever planned for residential until after the 1-2 was established. If an 1-2 business were to do something different, then the screening requirements would take effect. Frie asked if Morrell was awarc that the meeting that he missed would be the one where the proposed ordinance discussion was to come to a conclusion. Morrell stated that he was unable to attend. However, in reviewing the ordinance, he felt that some of what was discussed at the previous 111eeting was put in place, and some of it was modified. Frie asked if Tapper was in attcndance at both meetings referrcd to. Tapper stated that he was, however he stated that he wouldn't be addressing the Commission if he felt the amendment was complete or that industrial owners were fairly represented. Ray Schmidt, manager ofTirc Service Equipment, addressed the Commission. Schmidt stated that he didn't know there were meetings on this topic. lIe COll1mented that perhaps this ordinance is regulating things that aren't necessary. He stated that he felt common sensc should rule in this area. Frie clarified that that there were three meetings held regarding this proposcd ordinance amendment. Fric requested definite notification to all industrial property owners. Suchy asked Tapper, Morrell, and Schmidt to comment on how the amendment would affect their businesses individually. Tapper stated he didn't know at this time, which is part ofthc problem. lIe noted that he has two differcnt properties which could bc affected diffcrently. Morrell indicated that he has a property that abuts Klein Farms. While the current site and use is grandfathercd in as they exist today, any proposed changes would bc subject to screening that he doesn't feel isjustified. Tapper also noted his comment on the dumpsters and roil-ofT containers, as he is wondering how to screen a roll-ofT dumpster. . Frie commented that if the Commission establishes an ordinance, it may be that it would work for some and not others. 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . Posusta asked Morrell about the container dumpsters, inquiring whether this is something that other cities require. Morrell stated that he has not been affected in any other community in this regard. Spartz asked what type of change in Morrell's business would require the screening. Patch stated that the current uses exist by CUP, and that an intensification of use or ehange in use would trigger the buffering as proposed. Spartz asked if the intensification would be an arbitrary determination. Patch responded that the determination can be considered arbitrary. Spartz asked if as the business grows, this trigger would apply. Grittman stated the need to comply with the proposed ordinance would apply in the case of something that materially affects the site. Grittman noted that this is not always a bright line definition. Patch referred to Morrell's situation, where there was an exchange of properties, and some came into continuolls use. With the change in use, the City negotiated with Morrell to apply for a CUP to deal with some of the issues and uses. Patch stated that this qualifies as an intensification of use, as the original lot did not have any use. Patch stated that growth of uses in a gradual way may also trigger the amendment to CUP, which would then also trigger the compliance with the code as amended. Posusta exanlplcd Tapper's H Window Building, stating that when Tapper added on to the building, staff required a berm on multiple sides and tree plantings. Posusta stated that this affected Tapper's use of his property as he can't use his propeliy to the full extent due to berms. Posusta stated that he personally docsn't agree with that. . Grittman noted that the benning and landscaping required for Tapper's expansion were not arbitrary staff decisions. Staff was enforcing what was in the cxisting ordinance for those requirements. As a CLJ P was required for loading docks fronting the publ ic strcet, both the Commission and Council were able to consider the bcnning and landscaping items through due proccss. Staff didn't require them without merit. Frie stated that in his estimation, thc packet that Commission received includes four items for consideration and inquired whcther they had mct the common sense test that had been mentioned, as they seemed to be relatively straightforward amendments. Tapper statcd perhaps the proposcd amendnlents arc too easy. For cxample, Tapper noted that screening is rcquired at eye lcvel. So, the assumption is that thc screening should be such that one can't see anything behind screen. Viewing storage at eye creatcs problems for the owncr who has a sitc lower than othcrs. Tapper noted again that he would like to see the ordinance include dumpsters. Tapper stated that thcrc is also still a problem with what happcns between uses, including commercial areas. Hearing no further commcnt, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Schumann outlined the original public hearing process and noted that the same invite list had becn used for each of the subsequent mcetings regarding the amendment. She noted that based on Fric's earlier statement, she could includc all propeliy owncrs in all industrial districts. Schumann commented that when considering this, it might also bc important to have reprcsentatives frOll1 ncighboring uses in attendance at the next meeting. Schumann stated that as the ordinance also affccts other segments of the community outside of the industrial areas, it is important to have that representation, as well. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO 'fABLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGULATING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER STUDY. 3 Planning Commission Minutes -- 08/02/05 . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, WHO AMENDED THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND THA l' THE NEXT MEETING REGARDING THE AMENDMENT INCLUDE REPRESENTATION FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERICAL PROPERTIES. Posusta commented on the large trees on the H Window property, noting that powerline companies do not want trees near their lines. Frie asked who moderates the ad hoc meetings. Grittman responded that it has typically been staff who leads, although it is an open forum. Frie asked if a resolution can be accomplished by the September meeting. Morrell stated that at the first meeting, everyone signed in and recommended that al of those persons be on the notifieation list. He also stated that it helps if there is more of an advanee notice. Frie asked Morrell if it seemed as though the first meeting included a good eross- section of industrial properties. Morrell stated that he felt it was. Patch suggested that in gathering the residential eontingent it might be worthwhile to inform town home associations. Grittman reeommended tabl ing to the October meeting. This would allow staff to meet with group, develop additional language. Then, a subsequent meeting ean be held with the group, at which the suggested changes and complete proposed ordinance are reviewed. In this way, Grittman stated that the group eould reaeh a consensus before coming back to Commission. . CHAIRMAN FRIE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE TABLING THE ITEM '1'0 THE OCTOBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. Frie asked that the IDC to be made aware of the Commission's decision and the upcoming meetings, as well. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Taco John's Restaurant, a convenience food establishment in a B-4 district. Applicant: JAT Restaurants Grittman stated that the applicants arc rcqucsting tabling of this item. Frie stated that it is his understanding that the applieants realize that it may be too late in the season for construction this year. Grittman stated that it might at some point be worthwhile to withdraw their appl ication. Dragsten clarified thatthe requirements of the 60-day rule had been adhered to. Girttman confirmed the request to table was the applicant's. McrfION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMrr FOR 'fACO JOHN'S INDEFINITELY AT THE REQUEST OF TIlE APPLICANT. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . 7. Public Hearting - Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing open and outdoor automobile sales within a B-3 (Highwav Business) Zoning District. Applicant: Gould Bros. Patch provided the staff report, stating that the request for conditional use permit was to allow the outdoor sales and display of the vehicles parked along the lot, facing Highway 25. Patch indicated that the sales would be one of three current uses on the property. Thos uses would now include the used car sales by Gould Bros, an auto body shop, and beauty salon. Patch stated that the proposed use is consistent with the CUP previously granted to Automaxx at this location. Patch noted that the use proposed by Gould is less intense than what was allowed for Automaxx. Under this request, staff would recOll1mend that Gould display no more than 50 vehicles. Patch stated that questions may arise in that Gould has been selling vehicles here for some time. Patch indicated that they did so as a non-conforming use, although the applicant thought they were proceeding under the previous CU P. Patch explained that the previous CUP expired with new ownership. The B-3 district allows new and used automobile and light truck sales through CUP based on the terms allowed by ordinance. Patch stated that Gould 13ros. would appear to meet the requirements ofthe code. Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions in Exhibit Z. Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing. . Jay Morrell, property owner, stated that he is confused regarding this CUP, as he thought the area was included in a PUD. He indicated that the Gould Bros. use was grandfathered in under the PUD. He stated that hc bclieved there was a change in the ordinance which put a sunset on CUPs. Morrell commented that he would like clarification on whether a new permit was really necded and why the PUD approved for Automaxx couldn't continue for Gould Bros.. Grittman responded that in terms ofthe ordinance, it states that any CUP that ceases to be utilized for more than 6 1110nths is no longer valid, effective duc to non-use. That particular section of the ordinance for CUPs has been in place since the adoption of the ordinance. Morrell stated that the previous CUP didn't lapse for six months. He will check his records. Patch stated that Morrell raised an intcresting point in that this use was allowed originally under the terms of a PUD. The PUD allowed multiple uses, including the salon and Glass IIut. In the interim, the auto body shop developed. A CUP was allowed for the auto body shop. Patch noted that this does involve the question about change of use within a CUP or PUD. For eX31l1ple, ifthere are multiple uses, at what point is a new CUP be required. Patch stated that a CUP would need to be amended whenever there is a non-original use proposed for a site. Grittman said that it his understanding that an auto dealership which operates on the same property under same terms can continue indefinitely. Frie stated that assuming that the lapse wasn't six months, COl11l11ission had conditioned the approval based on a certain number of cars on site. In that case, the CUP may still need an adjustment. Morrell statcd that the Automaxx permit allowed up to 99 cars. . Frie stated that there are two issues to be addressed. If the Automaxx CUP is still in effect, the Commission is wasting time on this issue. Frie asked how quickly this item can be resolved. John Michaelis, Gould representative, confirmed that they have been there for a full year. Frie asked if they were operating under the assumption the previous CUP was still valid. Michaelis stated that was accurate. Patch noted that any time there werc a substantive 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . change, however it would need to eome baek. In this case, the use is changing. In example, Pateh noted that the Automaxx didn't have a body shop. What staff is suggesting is that this use is consistent use for the area and that the use is less intensive. Patch eommented that it might be appropriate to reduce the number of cars allowed due to the auto body use, which wasn't there during the Automaxx period. Frie stated that assuming this CUP would be approved, it would allow the use, whether the CUP could be continued or not. Frie indicated that there should be a maximum number of cars allowed, in any case. Frie asked Morrell and Michaelis if they were familiar with the conditions listed under exhibit Z. Michaelis stated that he did have an issue with only 25 cars allowed on site. hie noted that staff had made a correction to allow 50. Frie asked if Miehaelis was comfortable at 50. Michaelis agreed. Pateh eommented that it may also be important to the Commission to consider where the vehicles for sale are located on the property, or they may want to leave it up to the tenant and property owner. Frie asked Morrell if at the Automaxx public hcaring, the overlapping business places and uses had been addressed. Morrell stated that they had not. Morrell commentcd that he doesn't feel it's a City issue, as that problem has been resolved with signage and tenant cooperation. Morrell said that it was with the tenant after Automaxx that problems occurred. Michaclis indicated that he had a letter from the owner of Professional Approach, the beauty salon on site, stating that in the three years they have been on site with Gould Bros., they have never had a problem. Hearing no furthcr comment, Chainl1an Frie closed the public hearing. . Dragsten noted to Morrell that the zoning code outlines specific requircments for parking and referred to condition 3 requiring that the applicant comply. Suchy asked whether in complying with condition number 4 for signage, they Commission can ask the applicant to dress up the area on Highway 25. Morrell stated that City has burdencd Michaclis already. Morrell stated that it is a business area and if you want to sell a car, you need to be able to display it. Morrell stated that the site complies with the original recommendations of the PUD; anything more would be ludicrous. Frie clarified that Suchy was in f~lct stating that the applicant bc allowed more signage with appropriate landscaping. Suchy confirmed, stating that the signage should be something more decorative, citing that that area of Highway 25 is a nice business area and that shc would like to see it enhanced. Michaelis stated that he did not want to paint himself into a corner. He indicated that he would look into that before committing. Posusta stated that he does not believe Michaelis will turn this into an area to sell junk cars. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO TilE CITY COUNCIL THAT 'TUE CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT FOR AUTO SALES/DlSPLA Y FOR GOULD BROTHERS BE APPROVED BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE 13-3 DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDl'T'IONS OF EXHIBIT "7", NOTING THAT CONDITION 2 SHOULD READ "50 VEHICLES" AND TO REMOVE CONDITION 3. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS1'EN. DRAGSTEN ^MENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE CONDITION 3, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT MAY INTEND TO MEET THE CONDITION. MOTTON CARRIED AS ORIGINAL. MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . Frie asked Morrell to follow-up on whether the CUP was still valid as it related to continued use. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a real estate agencv in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District. Applicant: Professional Brokers Realty Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the PZM district allows single and two-family uses, as well as certain business uses as allowed by conditional use permit. The applicants are seeking a CU P to operate a real estate office in an existing residential structure. Grittman explained that the PZM district is intended to provide a transition area between high density residential and low density commercial. Grittman explained that the existing house faces Elm Street. In that area, the uses are predominately single family, although he noted the Public Works facility nearby. Grittman stated that staffs concern is that this area doesn't represent a true transition zone as outlined in the ordinance. The other concern is the parking requirements for commercial uses. In this case, 10 spaces are required. The applicants have indicated that they do not believe they will need 10 spaces. Grittman commented that although this may currently be accurate, the issue becomes that as businesses grow they may need those spaces as business intensifies. Grittman noted that ifthe applicant does provide the parking, it may also come into conflict with the existing residential uses. . Grittman stated that for those reasons, staff is recommending denial of the CUP, believing that the best use of this property is low dcnsity residential. If the Planning Comm ission believes that the proposed use is permissible, Grittman suggested making some recommendations to mitigate the commercial influence, such as buffering, landscape screening of parking area, etc. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Leticia DeChene Fulda and Lisa Martin, representing Professional Brokers Realty, spoke the Commission. Martin indicated that they own Professional Brokers Realty and are the only employees of that company. Martin reported that they currently operate their facility as a home occupation. Martin explained that it had been their intent not to look like every other agency, but rather to keep the ambience ofthe office being in a home. Martin referred to staff's concern on traffic and parking. Martin stated that there will not be any othcr employees othcr than herself and DeChene Fulda. Martin indicated that ifthe Commission wants thenl to take the lawn and make it a parking lot, they will do so. Martin commented that as traffic increases along County 39, the property will become less attractive f()r single family uses. Martin stated that she believes the highest and best use will be low- intensity business. If the agency hires more agents, they would not office on this sitc. Martin noted how they would direct visitors to the site in order to alleviate neighbor's concerns about traffic. Martin also addressed the five findings of denial. Martin refuted staff's belief that the area is dominated by single-family homes, citing the twinhomes, American Legion and Public Work facility, all in immediate proximity to the site. Additionally, Martin stated that there would never bc a time when the would be more than 3-4 cars in the driveway. . DeChcne Fulcla addressed the Commission as co-applicant and owner of 505 Elm Street. DeChene Fulda reported that she had obtained a bid to extend the parking area, should it be required. Those plans show that thcre are II spaces possible. DeChcne Fulda stated that 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . sonle of her concerns mirror Martin's in that they are seeking to maintain a low profile, professional business. As far as buffering or landscaping, DeChene Fulda stated that they are invested in the property, but do not want to invest another $20,000 unnecessarily into parking lot and landscaping. DeChene Fulda stated that in terms of future employees, they may hire one office administrator. DeChene Fulda stated that the alternative to the CUP is to pursue this as a home occupation or rental situation. DeChene Fulda stated that they are willing to work with the Commission to adhere to any requirements required to pursue this item. Ed Lane, 804 Golf Course Road, addressed the Commission. Lane explained that his land abuts the subject property. Lane stated that he doesn't want to see a parking lot happen on the property. Lane noted that there is already a problem with parking, stating that when the City redid Elm Street, parking was only allowed on one side. Although Lane recognized that there wuld perhaps by more businesses in the area in the future, he personally does not want to see business in a single-family area. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked staff if this is a conditional use permit for a business versus a home occupation, as a home occupation would be under different regulations. Grittman confirmed that this request is for a CUP and that home occupations are allowed only as an incidental use to primary residential use. Posusta asked DeChene Fulda and Martin if they would be living in the property. Mm1in answered that they would not be living in the home. Martin also noted that the property is already significantly buffered by lilacs and large line of evergreens. . Frie commented that he had noticed an Edina Realty sign was up on the property and that it was listed on the market. Martin indicated that it was closed on today. Patch noted that the appl icants had requested him to meet them at the property. In doing so, he had noted that it is an easy change to make the site handicap accessible. At that time, he also informed them of both home occupation and CUP requirements. Frie commented that while a real estate office may be low intensity use, it still needs to comply with the ordinance as provided. Frie stated that he does not believe the proposed se to be consistent with the ordinance. Frie stated that the five conditions outlined wouldn't allow for a low intensity use. Frie also made noted of h is concerns regarding traffic at the corner of Elm Street and County 39. Frie stated that if there is ever a time that the City needs to do something about controlling an intersection, this is it. Frie indicated that with Heritage Development's plans, and the construction of Chelsea Road, this area will not get better, nor would another busincss help the traffic situation. Posusta agreed, stating that he disagreed with the CUP requested by Public Works on the same grounds when they wanted to build the storage structure in a residential neighborhood. Frie asked if traffic in this location is a County issue. Grittman contirmed. Grittman indicatcd that he will carry Frie's concern on traffic forward. . Patch explained that Council would like ih Street to run through from County Road 39 through to the Highway 25 and 1-94 intersection. 'fhis corridor should be taken into consideration regarding traffic concerns and growth in the area. Dragsten stated that with Chelsea going through in the future, the proposed alignment referred to by Patch would alleviate a lot oftraffie. Posusta agreed, stating that a study should be done on this item, 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 08102/05 although construction may be premature at this juncture. . Dragsten stated that hc is questioning whether an approval would actually hurt the property. He commcnted that a family of four at this location would probably generate more traffic than this proposed use. Dragsten inquired whether therc is something that can be done in between to achieve the applicant's and the Commissions goals, such as assigning busincss hours. Frie noted that while that may be possible, the fact is that the plan for the use doesn't appear to meet code requirements. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER fRIE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A REAL ESTATE AGENCY IN A PZM DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS FOLLOWS: I. The proposed use is located in a neighborhood dominated by low density, single family residential houses. 2. The PZM District allows for business uses in areas of transition to high density residential, or mixing of commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The uses in the surrounding neighborhood do not support the conditions necessary for the introduction of a commercial use as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The propeliy, if converted to business use, would not be able to accommodate the required parking supply as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The property requires significant buffering and landscaping to screen the use and activity from the adjacent residential propCl1Y. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. Dragsten statcd that his dissent is due to thc fact that he believcs there is another approach possiblc and encouraged the applicant to talk with staff about other alternatives. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive- through facility in the Ccntral Community District and to allow ioint parking and drives, and consideration of a request for Variance from parking lot standards as required bv the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: Masters 5111 Avenue Grittman reviewed the staff report on the request, explaining that the proposed second phase of Landmark Square would consist of an approximately 11,500 foot commercial building at the corncr of Locust and 3rd. The first phase ofthe project cxists at the corner of Broadway and Locust. . Grittman indicated that the applicants have submitted conccptual building elevations, which show a drive through exiting out onto Locust Strect. The business uses are proposed as restaurant and rctail. Grittman stated that the second phasc continues the parking expansion. The additional parking required by the second phase is estimated to be about 100 additional parking spaces to meet code. Grittman stated that the CCD regulations allow reduction of the requircd spaces by a measure of 40%. In that case, the applicants would need to provide 60% of the required parking and leavc it open to public uses. This also allows overflow parking on thc strcct, as it is assumed to be temporary parking. Grittlnan reported that this type of parking ordinance has functioned well in Monticello and in other communities. Grittman 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02105 . reported that the issue with this proposal is that the parking proposed falls short of the 60% parking requirement. It is possible that the surrounding space can accommodate the parking and it is also possible that the ultimate use mix may not require that number of spaces. However, Grittman eXplained that the problem is that the City would be making those asslllllPtions based on conceptual plans. If the applicant had provided all of the normal documentation required, staff would be able to supply more realistic parking calculations. Grittman stated that on a conceptual level, staff believes this to be a nice project, but that staff would also note that the ordinance requires submission of more detailed plans. As a result, Grittman indicated that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit, and possibly a variance based on final parking supply, subject to final plan and site plan submission. Those documents would need to be provided at the Planning Commission's special meeting on the 22"d of August. That recommendation would give staff a chance to run final calculations for parking and make final site plan comments. Frie asked ifthe Planning Commission is being premature in taking action on this item at this time, in light of a proposed special meeting. Grittman stated that the intention ofthe motion is to grant conceptual approval, with the intent to verify details. It gives the applicant a chance to comply with the terms and conditions of any recommendation and the ordinance. Frie noted that the ordinance does not really provide for a conceptual approval with just a Conditional Use Permit. Frie asked if they would be able to act on the conditional use permit and variance at the special meeting, noting all of the missing plans. . Dragsten remarked that at this time, the City cannot even be sure what the uses are. Grittman stated that was correct, it is only known that it will be conunercial. Frie noted that staff had comll1ented that without fUliher detai I, they can't make the needed parking calculations. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Brad Johnson spoke to the Commission, representing Masters 5th A venue. Johnson agreed with Grittman' s presentation in terms of process. He stated that had they not gone with a drive-though, the proposal wouldn't have required a Planning Commission review. Johnson reported that a local company was taking the 2700 square foot restaurant and drive-through space. Johnson stated that he understands that they are short of certain documents. He noted that they had mct with OAT just prior to the Commission meeting and that OAT liked the project. OAT also sought to see all required details prior to their recommendation. Johnson stated that they are dramatically changing the parking in a positive way and obtaining cross-easements to make the parking systenl work. He indicated that they would like to proceed as if the Planning Commission is okay with the project, if we can meet the requirements. He stated that he doesn't think they will need] 00 parking spots. Johnson stated that in many cases, they don't know who tenants will be. Johnson commented that he thinks that they have added 63 spots for a net gain of 52 spots, noting that normally retail would require 53 spots. They believe that they are close on parking. He would ask that the Commission leave it to staff to figure out how to proceed. They will move ahead with architectural plans with the Commission's approval. . Frie asked if the restaurant space will be fast food. Johnson stated that it would not; it will be a local restaurant with enteliainment. Johnson commented that they think they can get under construction on Sept. 15th with Commission's recommendation of approval. Harry Fluth, partner in Masters 5th A venue and propeliy owner, made himself available for questions. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . Koropchak noted for the record that OAT had approved the concept presented to them, with the condition that the developer come back with plans for lighting, signage and materials. The developer could bring the plans back to DAT on August 16th, with their recommendation going to the Planning Commission on August 22'1('. Oragsten stated that his concern is that although the project looks nice, an approval is based on the amount of info available. Dragsten stated that until he sees everything re~uired and staff has had a chance to review it, he is in favor of tabling the item until the 22'1l. Johnson noted that the Planning Commission has total control over whether they ultimately get the permit. Oragsten stated that the Commission cannot grant a conditional use permit with only conceptual information. Johnson asked what the Commission needed specifically Dragsten stated that conditional use permits typically require more information on uses, lighting, signage, etc. Johnson stated that at this point, they don't know what those uses would be, and that would be common in this kind of development. Patch stated that with regard to the timeline of getting the project in the ground, this factor compelled staffto say this project should move forward, even knowing that complete plans wouldn't be available. It is understood that all submittals will be required. He stated that staff didn't want to seem unsupportive of business growth in the area. Patch also noted that without the drive-through, it would have gone straight to building permit. Dragsten asked why the request couldn't have waited to the special meeting. Grittll1an stated that at the time this hearing was scheduled, a special meeting wasn't anticipated. . Frie asked jfthe Commission approved a conditional use permit, would it go to Council minus all the answers Conlmission had noted. Grittman stated it wouldn't go to Council until the 22'1(1. Frie commented that in that case, the item could go to the special meeting ofthe 22nd, and that Inay help solve procedural problems. Frie asked if it was acceptable to the applicants to continue the item to August nnd meeting. Johnson deferred to staff. Grittman stated it would be tine. Frie noted that at a concept level, he is supportive, and it seems that Dragsten is, as well. I-lis concern is that the request is without plans as noted. Spartz agreed. Suchy noted that it is important that drive-throughs in downtown are discouraged, noting that this drive-through actually opens to Locust, rather than central downtown. She stated that projcct will be a nice addition to the community. Posusta stated that he would be receptive to the prc~ject if they had all of their documents in place. Posusta asked Koropchak if this is TIF project. Koropchak conformed it will be, as a redcvelopment district. Posusta asked if the area qualifies as blighted. Koropchak explained that an inspection of the three homes would be completed and a report on that inspection would be provided to Council and the HRA in order to approve the TIF plan. Posusta asked how the matter of parking shortage can be resolved. Posusta stated that maybe the requirement should bc that the developer supply it at 3rd Street. Frie noted the developer . can also pay a fee which goes into a fund for downtown parking. Johnson stated that would apply based on a detailed plan for parking calculations. Posusta noted the parking problems 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05 . at Crostini's and that stated he wants to 111ake sure the City is not making it worse, Johnson stated that the presented parking plan addresses that issue in both flow and usage. Johnson stated that they are also moving a trash container, which takes 3 spaces, to the corner. Grittman agreed thc layout and circulation shown on the plan is good. He added that the plan states that there will be no work in existing areas, shown in gray, Orittman stated that there are conditions of the first phase approval that have not yet been met, which will need to be remedied with this project. Frie inquircd about how Commission's decision would affect agenda item number II regarding the TIF district. Koropchak stated that it is her recommendation to table that item, as well. Koropehak stated that while the plan may be consistent in terms of the eomp plan and zoning, a final approval on the conditional use permit should bc a part of that approval. Koropchak stated that she would give her presentation, and then ask for Commission to table it. Then it can be acted on for the August 22"d meeting. lIearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' FOR LANDMARK SQUARE" TO THE AUGUST 22nd SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PENDING SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS AS NOTED IN TIlE STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. . MOTrON CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER SUCHY IN DISSENT. Suchy stated that her dissent was based on the fact that she believes the plan is sufficient to move the project forward and authorize the conditional use permit at this time, 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to ioint access and ioint drives and parking lot setbacks. Applicant: City of Monticello . Grittman reviewed the staff report for the item, stating that the proposed ordinance related to parking lot design issues the City has been dealing with in plan reviews. The first issue isrelated to the setback for parking area curb lines. The codc's current requirement is set at a five foot setback, Ilowever, thc City also requires six and twelve foot drainage and utility easements for lot and plat lines, respectively. What staff have found is that if parking areas are bui It to the 5 foot setback I ine, the parking lot is actually built right over thc top of some utility installations. Grittnlan noted that this problem has been increasing each year due to the amount and typc of utility installations. Grittman explained that when a parking lot is built, there arc occasions in which utilities need to go in, and the parking lot has to be torn out, interfering with business operations. There are also rcstoration issues between thc developer, the utility cOlnpanies and the City in terms of who pays for thc restoration in those situations. Grittman statcd that restoration is the propcrty owner's rcsponsibility. Grittman indicted that the proposed ordinance provides a resolution in that it moves thc curb line setback to a location equal to the utility casement, keeping utilities out of parking lots. (Jrittman noted that it has a periphery benefit of adding additional green spaec as an aesthetic advantage. Grittman also noted that many busincsses are already complying with this in thcre sitc planning. Cirittman stated that the second issue addressed by the proposed amendment relatcs to joint parking. The currcnt code requires a planned unit development for all joint access or parking 12 . Planning Commission Minutes ~ 08/02/05 situation, which can be a cumbersome process for what is most often a simple site plan issue. Girttman explained that a PUD designation requires that the City make findings that there is an extraordinary design advantage to justify the PUD. Cirittman repolted that staff is suggesting that if the access and parking is truly joint, irrespective of lot I ines, the request would need a CUP, rather than a PUD. In this way, applicants would also need to comply with typical ordinance requirements. A CUP also does not accomnlOdate the flexing of those standards as with a PUD. Grittman commented that staff bel ieves that the proposed changes enhance the utility of parking areas, ease circulation, and reduce the reconstruction of parking lots. Staff recommend approval of the amendments. Frie asked if a single motion would resolve both joint parking, drive and setbacks. Grittman confirmed that it would. Oragsten inquired ifthe ordinance setback was adjusted to meet the drainage and utility easement, where the curb line would actually be. Grittman explained that in the case of interior lot lines, where the drainage and utility easements are set at six feet, the setback is not altered much as the back of curb would be at five and a half feet. It would be in the case of the exterior lot I ines that the greatest shift would occur. Dragsten asked what the process would be for two adjoining parking lots. Grittman stated that the expectation would be that thc proposal would require the CUP process as noted. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Simola stated that the proposed amendment would need a small anlOunt of rewording to indicate that no parking may be located on drainage and utility casements adjoining a public street. Frie asked where that information would be applied specific to the proposed ordinance that the Commission had in their packets. Simola stated that he change would be to thc second pagc, second line. Simola stated that it should read "public drainage and utility easements adjoining a public street". Grittman noted the change and indicated that it would be restructured before moving forward to Council. Hearing no tLlIther comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten inquired how this amendment could impact thc CClJ with its zero lot lines. Grittman stated that the CCD has its own section requirements for parking applications. Oragsten confirmed it would not override those requirements. Grittman stated that the six foot setback would apply to the CCD as proposed, but joint parking was already allowed. Posusta asked Simola how wide avcrage City streets are. SinlOla stated that they are between 32' and 36'. Posusta stated that the reason he asked is that when he sold his property, the City bought an 80' easement. Posusta noted that if the street is 32' hom curb to curb, that would leave 24' on each side of the road for casement purposcs, and now the City is asking for more than that. Posusta stated that he is wondering how Illuch propelty developers have to give up to aCCOlllmodate eascments. Simola responded that when talking about commercial propelties such as those along School Boulevard, there is a 40' street within a 60' eascment. In that case, by the time the City adds street lights, thc casement area is down to a 5' space between the street lights and parking areas for utilities. . Frie noted that the staff report had indicated that there may be propelty owners who object, of which Posusta is an example. Simola stated that utility placement has changed. In joint trench situations, small utilities go 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02105 . in all at once. IIowever, there are many cases where the utilities may not go in all together. Simola noted that utility companies, including Xcel, have asked to bc in easement areas and be more protected. Simola noted that the 10' easelnent requirement is fairly common. However, it does make sense to line up the setback with the drainage and utility easement for consistency. Frie asked if the amendment is approved, is there a possibility of dealing with the exccptions. Simola answered that the City could in some cases issue a license to occupy utility easement areas. Grittman noted that the City might need to consider a variancc for zoning issues in somc cases. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMENO APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINOING THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR BETTER PARKING LOT DESIGN AND PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIEO. 11. Consideration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect NO.1 and TIF Plan for TIF Oistrict No. I ~35 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment ofthe city. Applicant: Master's Fifth A venue, Inc. . Koropchak provided the staff report, indicating that the Commission could take action this cvening, if they chose. She stated that what the Comlnission is asked to do is to find the project consistent with the general developmcnt plans for the City. Koropchak stated that the HRA has started the process for thc 'I'IF district, which will be a redevelopment district. The Commission is asked to indicate support for the plan presented in tcrms of zoning, comprehensive plan and redcvelopment goals. Koropchak rcfcrred to the Central Monticello Rcdevelopment Plan Map, showing TIF district areas where the HRA can create new districts.. Koropchak referred again to the need for the inspector to make sure the three propertics meet the qualifications of the substandard and coverage tests required by TIF. Koropehak stated that the three parecls are currently located in TIF 1-22. Internally, this will require the County to remove them from District 1-22 and cstablish a new district. Koropehak repolted that thc 'I'IF District would run for 25 ycars. The lIRA is working with the developer to determine the final amount of assistance. Koropchak reiterated that it is important when using public dollars that the Planning Commission looks at thc finished product in terms of usc to ensure the overall concept fits downtown revitalization plans. Koropchak suggested tabling the item to the August 22nd. Posusta inquircd what would happen ifthc inspector finds the buildings are not substandard. Koropchak stated that in that case, the staff reconllnendation to the HRA would be to not establish a redevelopment district, perhaps instead a renovation district. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON THE RESOLUTION FINOING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REOEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND TIF PLAN FOR . TIF DISTRICT NO. ] -35 CONFORMS TO TIlE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY TO THE AUGUST 22'''' MEETING. 14 Planning Commission Minutes .~ 08/02/05 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. . ] 2. Consideration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-36 conform to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the city. Applicant: Rocky Mountain Group, LLC Koropchak noted that the Planning Commission would need to make the same findings for consistency as noted in the previous item. Koropchak explained the project location at School Roulevard and Chelsea Road near Otter Creek. Koropchak stated that Dahlheimer's is the first proposed project for this district The City will enlarge the boundaries ofthe redevelopment area in order to create districts within this area. Koropchak rep0l1ed that the infrastructure improvements by the City are on schedule, and should be done by the end of October. hie asked how close 1-94 is to this area. Koropchak stated that the area zoned B-4 and retained by Chadwick lies between the City's park and the interstate. Koropchak stated that the City business park is proposed to be an economic district, and does not need an inspection. It does need to create jobs. Koropchak stated that the HRA has established criteria for job creation and wages. Koropchak stated that Dahlheimer's will retain 29 current full-time with average $20.21 without benefits. The criteria within the business center to receive the reduced land rate is to average at least $16.00 per hour without benefits. . Koropchak noted that the Planning Commission had received the exterior elevations for the Dahlheimer building. It does meet zoning requirements and the owner is aware ofthe restrictive covenants in place in the parle Posusta commented that the Council is happy that Dahlheimer's is staying in the community and commended Koropchak on her efforts in the process. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING 'fHAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVEIDPMENT PROJECT NO. ] AND TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-36 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR TIlE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Consideration of schedu I in}!, upcoming. Planning Commission Workshops Schumann reported that O'Neill would have more for the Commissioner on this item at the next meeting, explaining that the need for general and overall City planning efforts may lead staff to ask for a second Commission meeting each month. 14. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. . '~4!!ll(j,!fh'-'LM#l AJJ Secretary I . 15