Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-05-2003 . . . Planning Commission Minutes 08/05/03 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - August 5, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Absent: Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and JeflO'Neill Fred Patch and John Glomski/NAC 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6 p.m., noting the absence of two commissioners and Deputy City Administrator JelT O'Neill. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 1.2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TilE JUL Y 1,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Interim Use Permit allowing outside storage as a principal use in an 1-2 zoning district. Applicant: Jay Morrell/JME of Monticello Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report. It was noted that the applicant is seeking approval of an interim use permit in the 1-2 zoning. No structures are proposed. only storage of equipment and materials. Patch stated it is recommended the permit be for a maximum of 5 years, and the applicant would need to re-apply at that time. Patch also advised of the zoning ordinance requirements for this type of permit, as well as requirements in Chapter 3, Section 2 that must he complied with if the city is to consider an interim use permit. Patch then provided some background regarding this site as well as the adjacent parcel also owned by the applicant. It was advised that no landscaping or screening plans were provided with the application and are required by ordinance to separate the residential area from this industrial lot. Patch stated that Matt Brokl, City Attorney, called earlier today and recommended tabling this item to address the above issues. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. .Jay Morrell, 1401 Fallon Ave., applicant, disagreed with Patch regarding items that were not submitted with the application. He further stated that Steve I Planning Commission Minutes 08/05/03 . Grittman, Brad Larson, Matt Brokl, and himself met several months ago and discussed what was necessary in order to proceed. He further stated that his attorney, Brad Larson, spoke to the City Attorney and they had agreed that this item he tabled. There were no more public comments and the public hearing was closed. . Chair Frie asked Mr. Morrell to address the issues in the staff report. He further questioned the applicant if this site had been dealt with previously by the Planning Commission and Morrell advised that he applied for and received a CUP for the 3 lots west of the current lot; and prior to that the property was owned by another party. Morrell purchased the building and property in foreclosure, although one lot was retained by original owner. Two lots were later combined, and one lot was paved. Several years ago the applicant swapped lots with the previous owner. Morrell advised that it was his understanding with Jeff O'Neill that he did not need a CUP if the parcel was adjacent to his building, but he states now he finds that it is not true. I-Ie further added that it is his feeling that the items on this lot are not visible from the road as there is a 6' concrete wall on the west side of the property. There is also a drainage pond on the south side which Lots 5 and 6 drain into and therefore he does not see the need for another outlet. Fric asked if Morrell had been approached by any adjacent land owners regarding his request and he stated no one had approached him. He did state, however that there have been occasional complaints regarding the lights, but those are actually on Lot 5. Morrell stated he previously discussed this with staff and he felt they were not in violation. Frie asked Morrell if he would respond to the 6 requirements listed in the stalTreport, further adding that the Planning Commission's objective is to work with the applicant, although it is a two-way street. Frie asked Morrell to advise them what he will do to comply with the requirements, prior to the Planning Commission moving forward on this item, if justified/satisfactory to hoth sides. Morrell stated the 5 year term tl1r the permit was previously discussed, he did not have a problem with this hut in reading the ordinance it implies that he must vacate the premise hefore being allowed to re-apply. He also advised at this time he does not intend to construct a building on this lot, although he may at some future date. lIe further stated that a specific termination date would put him in a position where he would have to shut down a significant portion of his business and he would like to have something in writing from the city in this regard. Item 3 stated the permit prohibits parking of automohiles, which he disagreed with as he stated the lot is paved and provides parking for tenants and employees frotH Lot 5. lIe also felt the gravel on this site is suitable t(1r parking and that they do have visual screening, again noting the berm, fence, trees, and the fact that they are far enough away fron1 the residential property with the drainage pond between the sites. He does not plan to have lighting on this site. Chair I,'rie asked him to address item 6 regarding setbacks and Morrell stated he is unaware of any necessary setbacks and the fenee is on the property line, but if it has to be moved he will move it. I,'rie further advised that he wanted to make sure that those 3 items noted by Morrell were addressed prior to coming back to the Planning Commission. Morrcll stated he would address all 6 items. . Fred Patch noted that there have becn no plans submitted showing the condition of the site at this time and that this was a necessary part ofthc application process. lie suggested that setbacks be determined for the proposed use and shown on the survey, further stating this was a simple proccss. Morrell noted that he specifically asked the Planner what items were necessary 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 08/05/03 to be submitted and felt he had provided this. lIe was not aware that there were questions on the south or west side of the site. Patch fUliher stated showing setbacks on the survey was a minor item for the applicant to provide. In terms of an e~piration date, Patch advised that this was suggested by the City Attorney and that the applicant would not have to vacate the premises, as long as the applicant applies fix another interim use permit before the expiration date. J.'rie further commented that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission sets the expiration date as they have for others in the past and then approved by the City Council. Patch concurred and Frie further advised Morrell the reasoning for having an expiration date. It was advised that the request for grading/drainage/paving plans as well as landscaping plans showing berming and surfacing, are necessary to establish uses, as well as the current state of the site. If all requirements of the zoning code are met by that plan, they could bring the item forward. Parking was still an issue and Chair Prie questioned why the applicant could not park on this site. Patch clarified that it is not allowable with an interim use permit as the Ordinance prohibits this. He further stated that parking creates a problem as there is no curb or gutter installed and parking then occurs all over the site, and therefore the reason it was written into the zoning ordinance. A MCyrlON WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TARLE ACTION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER MEETING OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH TI IE INTENT TO I IA VE THE APPLICANT SATISFY ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS NOTED IN TIlE STAFF REPORT AND AS FOLLOWS: I. ^ speci fled termination date is documented. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2, General Building and Performance Requirenlents are met. 3. The permit prohibits parking of automobiles. 4. The pennit specifies a gravel surface, suitable for parking oftrueks. 5. The permit specifies that the intensity of visual screening shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. 6. The permit specifies that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration ofrequest f()r a simple subdivision to create two city lots anq consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback. Applicant: Kathleen Gauthier John Glomski, NAC, provided the staff report for the applicant's request to subdivide her property. Glomski felt this might be premature at this time, advising that all contouring information had not been shown on plans submitted to staff, which is necessary for this process and more important to this site in particular due to the bluff. The property is located within the Mississippi Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River System and Shoreland Areas of the City. The Shoreline District requires additional requirements and performance standards, in addition to the R-I District standards. Glomski noted the applicant is 200 feet short of the Shoreline 3 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 regulation requirement, although the lot line could be moved to the west, but may impact the amount of livable area on the added lot. It appears there would need to be a large amount offill and vegetation cutting which would require a conditional use permit as well. The DNR would also have to review the setbacks, further stating the possible necd for a variance as wcll. If the Planning Commission were to allow this subdivision, staff would recommend the applicant to provide a concept drawing demonstrating that a house conforming to the new R-I regulations could be constructed on the lot prior to approval. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Kathleen Gauthier, 126 Hillcrest Rd, advised that there is a hill behind her house that is at least 15 feet straight down to a swamp, and did not feci the OHM was relevant in this case. She also did not feel that trees would have to be removed, as there is a natural open space on this site. Gauthier advised the Planning Commission her propcrty is too large for her to maintain any longer, but she would like to continue living there. Ilcaring no further response, the public hearing was closed. The applicant was advised to contact the DNR to get approval and any necessary permits as well. There was further discussion regarding the applicant's options and it was determined a meeting should be set up with staff and applicant to discuss options. Fred Patch advised the applicant to call him for contact names/numbers regarding the DNR and OllWM. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER. MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE APPLICANT SUfFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW OPTIONS AND TO CONTACT THE DNR FOR THEIR REVIEW. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. Public lIearinl2: - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a garage. Applicant: David Kranz John Glomski, NAC proyided the stalTreport stating the purpose of the variance request was to construct an addition to an existing attached, two-stall garage to store a motorhome. No dimensions were noted on the site plan; statI assumed that an existing shed would be removed. Photos of the site werc provided as well. Glomski advised that in order to grant a variance, a hardship would need to be found for justification. He further stated that vehicles are currently being parkcd in the ROWand expanding thc garage as proposed would further impact public safety. He also stated that adding to an existing nonconforming structure is generally not allowed. therefore an attached structure may not be seen as a possibility, although a detached structure may. A detached structure, meeting the requirements, could be built on this structure without a variance or possibly a rear facing garage may be allowed, providing a different access. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. David Kranz, applicant, addressed the commission and questioned setback requirements, stating that he had measured setbacks from the curb. He advised the location for the proposed addition and stated it would be at least 25 feet from the rear property line. Kranz preferred an attached addition versus a cement slab in the back yard. They furthcr discussed setbacks for corner lots. Patch advised that the Planning Commission is 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 asked to consider a variance to allow construction of a conforming structure onto a non- conform i ng structure, therefore the reason for the variance request. Kranz provided plans for the proposed addition, noting that it was drawn to match up with the fi:ont of the house and existing rooflines. He stated the proposed addition to be 14' x 40 and that he currently has a 27' motorhome, but may have a larger one in the future. Glomski adviscd that this size of structure would rcquire a conditional use pcrmit as it would be larger than the 1200 sq. ft.. that is allowable by ordinance. Kranz stated he could reduce the size to 36' or 37' if necessary. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing and advised the applicant that they could not consider a conditional use permit at this time as it was not part of the public hearing application. The applicant stated he had not spoken to neighbors at this time as he was waiting for feedback from the commission. Frie asked that staff provide the applicant with options and Patch stated he had spoken to the applicant on a previous occasion, but at that time the applicant was unsure of the size of the addition. Patch advised the applicant to meet further with staff and asked the Planning Commission to consider tabling the request for a variance with the applicant possibly coming back with a request for a conditional use permit. There was further discussion that they would prefer the applicant meet the 20' setback requirement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST, DIRECITNG THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO DISCUSS OPTIONS AND POSSIBLY COME HACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITI I A REQUEST fOR A CON DrrIONAL USE PI~RMIT. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of the Monticello Marketplace 2nd Addition commercial subdivision and consideration of approval of concept and development stage planned unit development. Applicant: Brendsel Properties, Inc. John Glomski provided the staff report for the Monticello Marketplacc 2nd Addition, clarifying that the proposed restaurant site would be a sit down, not drive in as noted in the statf report. His review of the preliminary plat indicates that the proposal complies with requirements. Ci-Iomski stated the applicant is proposing rock faced block, brick and stucco, although the building dcsign may change. Applicant exceeds parking rcquirements; the landscaping plan submitted was short 2 required overstory trees; a signage plan has not yet been submitted, although the applicant is working on one. Fred Patch advised of a discrepancy in sign area allowable, noting that along School Blvd, which is a collector street at 45 mph, the allowed sign area is 150 sq. ft. and 26 ft. in height which is actually more signage area than what is allowed on Highway 25. He felt this may be due to prohibiting a proliferation of signs on Ilwy 25. Glomski stated no other issues and that staff recommends approval. It was advised that the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission with a CUP request when the restaurant is brought in, and Patch clarified that joint parking would not be allowed if a restaurant did not occur, although it could within the PUD. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Brendsel, applicant, noted that he had discussed the signage at length today with starr. His concern is sign allowance for the carwash; he doesn't feel the restaurant signage will be an issue. Brcndsel stated the strip center will be over 17,000 5 . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 sq. ft. and his intent if it can be worked out with staff is to have a reader board on a pylon for use by all tenants in the strip center. Regarding the landscaping plan, he thought this had been resolved when he talked to Jeff O'Neill prior to having it completed. His understanding on the amount of trees required was that the number could be reduced based on other enhancemcnts of thc sitc. Frie did not feel the 2 trees were an issue. There was a concern by the commissioners regarding the sign plan and if it would be coming back to the Planning Commission or only to staff. Patch stated he would like the Planning Commission to instruct staff on their desired standards, but other elements of the sign plan can be dealt with by staff. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Decision 1: Preliminary Plat A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, AS FOLLOWS: I. A revised landscape plan, providing an additional 2 overstory trees along either the Highway 25 or School Boulevard site perimeters should be submitted and approved by the City Staff prior to submittal of the final plat. . 2. Landseaping of the pareel per revised landscape plan prior to issuance ofa huilding permit or via a landscape bond. 3. A lighting plan meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Seetion 3-2[1-1], is submitted and approved by City Statf prior to Final Plat. 4. An in depth signage plan, showing construction material and dimensions for all signage within the site, meeting the requirements of Section 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance, is to be suhmitted and reviewed hy City Stan: prior to Final Plat approval. ). Final building elevations and layout plans are to be submitted to City staff prior to final approval. 6. All impervious surfaee is to be curbed with continuous curb not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade as required by City Code. 7. The grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. S. Recommendation of other City Stafe ineluding the City Engineer. 9. Submittal of a description as to methods and loealion of removing and storing snow. DA VE RIETVELD SECONDED 'fHE MOTION. . There was further discussion with the applicant stating his concern with item 4 in Exhibit Z regarding sign requirements. He wiU provide the plan, but is concerned with the 50 sq. ft. maximum area. Patch advised that the Planning Commission could approve the sign plan subject to staff approval and allow a larger pylon sign, taking into consideration the speed limit, and the sign could go up to 150 sq. ft., only allowcd bccause of the site's frontage on Hwy 25. The Planning Commission could also work with wall signagc. Frie then added item #9 to the 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes OS/05/03 conditions which requests submittal of a description as to methods and location of removing and storing snow. CARLSON AND RIETVELD AMENDED THEIR MOTION, AS STATED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT If "rIlE SIGNAGEEXCEEDS WHAT IS ALLOWABLE BY ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL, AS WELL AS ADDITION OF CONDITION #9. THERE WAS NO fURTllER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Decision 2: Commercial Planned Unit Development allowing a multi unit retail use in the B-3 district. A MO"rION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING A MULTI~lJNIT RETAIL USE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXI IIBIT Z AND STATED ABOVE, TO INCLUDE TI-lE ADDITION OF #9, BASED ON A FINDING TI IAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE lONING DISTRICT AND THE SITE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 9. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and consideration of an amendment to a concept stage planned unit development for Otter Creek Crossing. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the report and identified the proposed 19 acre site within the industrial area, noting that the city's current plan shows this area as primarily residential and that the Planning Commission has accepted a commercial pattern along 1-94 as well. It was advised that the IDC met earlier today as well, concurring with the rec0l11l11endation of planning staITwhich reduces the residential density by incorporating industrial development along the power lines and enf()rcing the R-2A standards. Two issues raiscd by stall were thc proposed residential subdivision having a border by thc power I ines, as well as the density being significantly denser that the district would permit. Also noted was that the PUD amendment appcars to be somewhat at odds with the city's long standing goals for industrial development. Due to the proximity to the rest of the industrial area and the Chelsea Road corridor and power transmission lines, planning staffhelieves that the transmission line corridor would be better left with its industrial designation. Patch did state however, that this was concept stage only and there would be ample time for changes to be made. Staff and theIDC recommend tabling the request and directing the developer to revise concept plans as noted in the staff report. Frie asked Patch if the completion of Chelsea Road would affect this project and Patch stated it may. Its future location has not heen determined at this time. I,and ownership and access issues need to be resolved and staff and city council have taken the position to let the applicant work those issues out. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta, 18202 Minnetonka Blvd., Wayzata, 7 . Planning Commission Minutes 08/05/03 addressed the Planning Commission representing Otter Creek LLC. He provided an aerial showing the 19 acre parcel and advised concept approval had been given a while back, but they were held up by annexation issues. He also pointed out certain amenities of this site, identified as Area C on the future study area map, such as trees, existing residential area, as well as the cemetery and noted that they would need sensitivity when addressing this area. The applicant had previously left that specific parcel as an area to be reviewed. He noted that annexation was approved earlier in the year and during the annexation process, this piece had been hard to market as it is an interior site. lie further stated that annexation issues also held up the marketing of this site due to the utilities not being available at the time. Bilotta provided the concept plan, noting that 10% of the site is proposed for residential uses, the power lines being the buffer, and that the applicant didn't like the transition of residential to industrial along the rear lot lines. He did realize the concerns of the power lines and would work on that. He further advised that the applicant would not be the end user of that part of the projeet, but they do need direction for the future developer. The applicant wi II concentrate on the industrial area. Bilotta stated they need to get the annexation process moving forward on this proposed residential parcel, further stating that density and undersized lots arc not an issue at this time as this was merely to get feedback from the Planning Commission. . Jerry Crocker, resident on Co. Rd. 39, stated his main concern was not with the proposed residential, but with what is being proposed at the tip of the project where it looks like Chelsea Road is proposed to run into Co. Rd. 39, stating his house is about 135 ft. lrom where the road is proposed. John Chadwick, Otter Creek LLC, stated this was a City Engineer and County Engineer design, not Otter Creek. Crocker further stated that back a while ago it was the thought that the road would not be put in at that point due to safety, increased traffic, signal lights, and proximity to his house. He feels there is another option to address the placement of the road. Frie stated he felt the applicant's concept plan was not that far along in the process. Bilotta stated his understanding is that this is only conceptLlal stage at this time, further stating that they looked at the full phase first and gave it their best guess, realizing things may change and the road may not be constructed for possibly another 5 years. Patch stated that the City Engineer working with the applicant has put considcration into the future Chelsea Rd and Co. Rd. 39, keeping it away from the overpass and pushing it as far away as possible, and there are no firm plans at this time. Frie further stated that his understanding was the possible placement of a cloverleaf over by the power plant. Crocker still felt it was an important part of the planning of this project and frie stated he did not feel that City Council had any input at this time and Stumpf concurred stating the County will have the final say. John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Cir, Bloomington, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission and stated they would like to push this project forward, noting that with this large of a site there are a number or details that need to be worked out, however with potential users they would like to be able to move forward. . Chair hie then closed the public hearing. Frie advised the two major concerns to keep in mind, after input from the IDC, City Council and stall is that the focus is to provide industrial opportunities and enfiJrce R-2A standards in the residential portion. frie asked what type of industrial was intended, and Bilotta stated their idea would be for Area A along the Highway to 8 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 have something more visually pleasing for a hetter entrance into the community, but compatible with the commercial area next to it. He further stated some limited commercial uses, as well as I-I A uses. In Area B, the city wanted to see an increase on the Heavy Industrial side, although it is I-IA zoned, with the thinking being that there are several areas in town that are higher uses and may relocate to this area. These being possibly a bus company and ready mix plant, but they are not looking to bring in heavy, ohnoxious users, and the intent was as directed hy staff. Area C was to he held 011' and reviewed. Chair Frie noted that stafrs request is to table action and give the developer direction. He asked for a more specific time line from the applicant and Bilotta noted that their time line is trying to get the Chelsea Rd project started and that they have a purchase agreement that was to have closed, but the plat is being held; they had hoped to be started several months ago. Bilotta further advised that they would like to see a two part approach on the portion to the south and the first phase would need a lift station and infrastructure that the city would need to put in; the applicant would build their loop from there and would work with staiT on the residential portion. The applicant felt there was sufficient time to make the necessary revisions for the September meeting of the Planning Commission. A MOT'ION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT THE DEVELOPER AND PLANNING STAFF TO PREPARE CONCEPT PLAN REVISIONS THAT INCORPORATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE POWER LINES, THEREBY REDUCING THE AREA PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. MOTION BASED ON 'rilE FINDING THAT THE SURROUNDING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PATTERN SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Public I Icaring - Consideration of a request for sketch plan review and consideration of a request for re-zoning from A-O to R-l, R-2, and R-2A for a single fami Iv residential subdivision. Applicants: Bison Development Co. and Sylvia Development. L.P. John Glomski, NAC, provided the staff report advising of the proposed land use for this site, which is consistcnt with low density. However, the applicant has included the R-2A lots with the detached single family lots which allows the site to increase the allowable attached townhome units to the 90 units they propose. Staff feels this method takes advantage of the R- 2A district standards, allowing for more attached housing and undermining the intent ofthc 2:] ratio. He further stated that the 42 proposed R-2A lots more clearly rcpresent detached townhome units and arc more closely linked to the attached townhome development. It was noted that staff is comf()l-table with the types of rcsidential Llses being proposcd. 'rhc proposed lots also appear to meet requirements, although circulation/access should he revised to show a more direct route, which will also need City Engineer and Public Works Director approval. Efforts should also be made to eliminate corner lots that are diffIcult to detcrmine the front lot line. It was also noted that the Parks Commission is requesting a 5 acrc park at the southwest corner. as well as trails/pathways to providc a connection betwccn developments. Stall is recommending approval with a revised concept plan mecting thc 2: I ratio requircment prior to preliminary plat suhmittal. 9 . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Roos, Bison Development and Bob Schmidt, Sylvia Dev., stated they are working jointly on this project to make them compatible. A resident at 4758 Park Dr, which is on a cul-de-sac, asked the developer what will happen to his property when this development goes in, and also stated a concern with a pipeline behind his home. Jay Roos, Hokmlson Development, advised that the street would be extended, as well as another stub out of the Klein Farms Development, but he was unsure about the process of removal of the temporary cuI-dc-sac. He stated the city would have a process for them to follow. The street would then be a through street with single family homes fronting the street. Chair Frie also mentioned to the resident that this is strictly at concept stage in order to provide direction. Frie further advised the applicant that he was of the understanding that in order to move on a zoning request it requires a 4/5 vote and with only 3 Plm1l1ing Commission members present, it could not be addressed at this meeting. Another concern he had was with the trail connection and neighborhood park. He questioned if the applicant understood the request and dollar amount that would be required. Fred Patch addressed the 2: 1 ratio and density concern, noting that even the concept stage comes into jeopardy and idcally the Planning Commission could make a decision if all members were prescnt and therefore he is recommending to not approve the concept stage at this time. He further suggested re-designating the areas with the 5 acre park requirement and 2: I ratio tl)f density. . Ken Adolphson, Schoel & Madsen, stated that the biggest issue appears to be the attached townhomes and small lot single family detached. He stated the lots are actually larger than what is required and pointcd out the 140 small lot single family and 42 townhomes, and that the applicant is trying to provide a variety of lot sizes, widths, and housing styles. He also provided another concept plan showing an identical street layout, but converted all detached townhome lots to R-Ilots, noting the exact same number of total single family lots of 182. lIe further stated the dctached lots are larger and the single family lots are somewhat smaller but still meet requirements. This sccond plan would meet the 2: 1 ratio and the applicant feels the established ratio can be achieved. . There was continued discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the new proposal presented at the meeting and if they felt they should move f()[ward or table the item. Annexation still needs to occur, but also they would like to expedite the project and keep it moving for the applicant. Jay Roos added that it was his understanding of the city's ordinance that the 4/5 rule referred to the members present. Stumpf advised that the City Council typically requires a full commission when acting on zoning decisions. frie further stated that this has come up before, only to have the action become null and void. Patch suggested a possible special meeting be held, due to the fact that the Planning Commission could not provide the applicant with a full commission. This could be held prior to the 2nd meeting of the City Council, which is the 4th Monday of the month. Roos further pointed out that the area indicated by the Parks Commission for park dedication has a home currently on that site, built in 1996, and not proposed to be removed. The intention of the Parks Commission should be clarifiecl. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO TABLE 'rl-IE REQUEST FOR TilE REZONING AND CONCEPT PUD APPROVAL, TO MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003, 5:30 10 . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 08/05/03 P.M., PENDING REVISIONS TO THE PLAN THAT RESULT IN A 2: 1 RATIO OF SINGLE F AMIL Y TO TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AND INCLUSION OF A 5 ACRE PARK. THE 2: 1 FORMULA TO COUNT SMALL I,OT SINGLE F AMIL Y AS A TOWNHOME. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 11. Consideration of appointing a Planning Commission member to the C.R. 18/1-94 Interchange Task Force. It was advised that Lloyd Hilgart had called city hall earlier in thc day and noted his willingncss to be a member of the task f(Jrcc. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICI lARD CARLSON TO NOMINA TE LLOYD HILGART TO TilE C.R. 18/1-94 INTERCHANGE TASK FORCE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Rich Carlson asked Patch if it was realistic to limit signage on collector roads to monuments only to deter prolifcration of pylons. Patch stated that the ordinancc does not differentiate pylons and monuments and that staifwas directed to review this issue previously. He felt it behooves the city to provide something more aesthetically pleasing and to determine a dcfinition and then designate. Frie then stated that the Planning Commission had directed staff to comc up with a date for an open forum to discuss townhome ratios and wanted to know where staiTwas at with this. Frie felt there have bccn negative remarks on the amount of townhomcs being constructed. Patch stated he would discuss this with Jeff O'Neill and advise that this was a priority of the Planning Commission. John Glomski added that Steve Grittman was also working on this item and Frie asked that this be discussed at the special meeting on the 25th. 13. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD 'ro ADJOURN Tl-IE MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ~~ 11