Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-04-2004 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 4th, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Rich Carlson, Council Liaison Glen Posusta David Reitveld Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Absent: Staff: I . Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum. Chairman Frie noted the absence of Commissioner Reitve1d and noted that no formal resignation has yet been received from Reitveld. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held APRIL 6'1'1-1. 2004. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6TH, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26TH, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. Chairman Frie requested the motion to approve the minutes of April 26th be amended to include his statement that should the developer and builder not meet the parameters of the amended PUD as approved by the Commission, they will not be allowed to proceed with their development process. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES BY CARLSON. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Posusta requested clarification of the motion approved at the April 26th meeting regarding the amendment to the Hillside Farm PUD. Posusta questioned whether the motion was accurate in listing requirements specifically related to the modified two. story. Frie indicated the motion was correct as stated. . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Frie requested that due to the agenda length, only urgent items be added. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Public Hearing - Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance from the 24 ' maximum driveway width for single family residences in an R-2 distriet. Applicant: Wayne Spiccr. Grittman revicwed thc stail report, stating that the applieant is sceking a variancc from the maximum driveway curb cut width of24 feet. 'fhe applicant has difficulty in negotiating a backing movement to place his boat in his detached garagc. The applicant also has an attachcd garage which is accessed by an existing driveway. Grittman stated that variancc requests are to be rcviewed as to whether a unique physical hardship exists that interfcres with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, the property is otherwise a conforming single family lot, and thc City granted a pcrmit to allow a sccond garagc, eonsistcnt with thc standards for CUP approval. One of these standards is the ability to comply with all other zoning regulations, such as driveway width. Grittman notcd that the standard limiting driveway width provides for snow removal storage at the cul-de-sac an is thercfore an important standard to uphold. It is the staff's view that conditions do not cxist that would meet the need for a variance as outlined in the ordinance. It is noted that the difficulty with access is related to the backing of a boat trailer, rather than dircct vehicle access. Grittman rccommended other alternatives, stating that it would appear to be possible to store the boat in the existing attached garage if morc direct access is neccssary, and shift: vehicle parking to thc detached building. In the altcrnative, thc applicant could shift his 24 foot driveway to the detachcd building, and curvc the driveway to the cxisting driveway, reversing the current arrangcment. Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing. Wayne Spiccr, III Crocus Circlc, addressed the Commission, indicating that the boat is too large to fit in the attached garage, which is why it was intended to go into the detached garage. Spicer indicated that because of limited vision in one cye, he is requesting the variance. Spiccr stated that he hadn't considered the option of putting the 24' driveway into thc -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . detached and then curving into the attached garage. He indicated that it would be easier and less expensive to proceed as indicated on the plan. Frie noted that it would appear Spicer does not meet the first prerequisite for variance, which is hardship. Frie asked ifhe understood both options outlined by Grittman. Spicer indicated that he did understand, although only one option is viable due to the size of the boat. Frie asked Spicer if had been contacted by any neighbors regarding this request. Spicer stated that he had not. Frie asked if there were any property line issues. Grittman indicated that the request meets the minimum required setbacks. Dragsten inquired where the curve could begin in the applicant's front yard. Grittman stated that distance is normally I 0 feet back from the curb, based on the size of most cul-de-sacs. Spicer inquired whether he could put crushed rock in the area he had proposed to be paved. Patch stated that all parking areas should be surfaced, which generally means paved. Patch stated that gravel would also be considered driveway, which wouldn't meet the ordinance. Grittman further clarified that the boulevard needs to be landscaped or green space by ordinance. [-fearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the publ ie hearing. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TilE PROPERTY CONDITIONS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED HARDSHIP TEST FOR VARIANCE CONSIDERATION, AND TlIA T OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET '1'1 IE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS ARE A V AILAI3LE TO THE APPLICANT. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Frie requested that the two altematives presented to the applicant be reflected in the minutes and the applicant consider those as his options. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing for a 728 square foot detached accessory use structure in an R-I district. Applicant: Shawn Leach Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a second garage on his property at 3657 I3rentwood Drive. The new garage would be detached, and a total of 728 square feet in area, reduced from the original application for a 900 square foot building. The existing attached garage is approximately 720 square feet. . Grittman stated that the request f()r accessory use is within the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit in the R~ 1 district. In addition, the applicant has -3- Planning Commission Minutes- 05/04/04 . indicated intent to meet materials, use, and location requirements. Grittman commented that because the building is located at thc rear of the lot, it may bc appropriate to require additional landscaping on the side and rear of the building. The plantings would help to mitigate neighborhood concerns over thc proximity of the building to adjoining property. Grittman noted that during a site inspcction, it appeared that the applicant has pavcd an arca around the side of his home that violates thc 3 foot sctback, and may also have a driveway curb cut width that exceeds the maximum 24 f()()t width requirement. The applicant noted in his application materials that he does not intend to provide a driveway to the proposed accessory building. Grittman recommcnded that this condition should be added to any approval, if granted. Grittman also recommended that the non-conforming driveway conditions on the property should be correctcd as a requircment of the initial building permit inspection. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Shawn Leach, 3657 Brentwood Drive, made himself available to answer questions from thc public and Commission. Frie inquired how long Leach had lived on said propcrty. Leach stated approximately II months. Fric askcd if Lcach was aware that hc had violated that ordinance for driveway width and possibly for minimum setbacks. Leach statcd that he was not made aware of the violation before reviewing the staff rcport and that he did not believe that the minimum driveway width had been excecdcd. Hilgart asked ifthc driveway around the house had been added after moving in. Leach stated that it had been part of the home's initial construction. Hi Igart asked the applicant what would be stored in the garage. Lcach stated that personal property would bc stored. Dragsten inquired about the height of the building. Leach statcd it would be 9' with an 8' garage door. Fric asked if neighbors were present to address the commission. Barry Spears, 3623 Brcntwood Drive, indicated that he supports the request as long as the applicant meets the standards outlined in the ordinance. Christophcr Principalli, 3669 Brcntwood Drive, also spoke in support of the project. Fric statcd that if the motion to approve prevails, the applicant will need to finish the building in the samc style as thc house, with landscaping as required. . Carlson indicated that he is in favor of applicant putting materials in garages. Howcver, he asked Grittman if it was acceptable to push it to the back of propcrtics, referencing the CUP approved for a similar request at the April meeting. Leach stated that he had positioncd it to makc full use of the back yard. Frie inquired whether planning staff had requested the garagc bc pushcd back. Grittman indicated that -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 request hadn't been made, but leaving as much usable yard space is preferred. Frie thanked the applicant for conforming to the commission's desire to clean up clutter. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGS TEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT MEET EACH OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE 1,500 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD, AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT . . LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS ARE ADDED TO THE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST SIDES TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF TIlE BUILDING ON ADJOINING PARCELS. IN ADDITION, NON~CONFORMING DRIVEWAY CONDITIONS SHOULD BE CORRECTED NO LAfER THAN THE TIME OF '1'1 IE INITIAL BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION, AND NO DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request to amend an existing conditional use permit. allowing for open and outdoor storage space as an accessory use in an I~2 district. Applicant: Simonson Lumber Pateh provided staff report, stating that Simonson Lumber is requesting a 50' X 60' expansion to the open and outdoor storage area on the west side of their retail building on the eorner of Chelsea Road and Oakwood Drive. Patch noted that the area for the expansion is presently open lawn area with air conditioning equipment located against the building. Simonson Lumber has indicated that they intend to use the expansion area primarily for the purpose of lumber storage in the summer and snow storage in the winter. The area would be fenced in the same manner as the existing storage yard to 6' in height. Patch cited the building setbacks in the 1-2 District, which are 30 feet side yard sctback; 50 feet rear yard setback; and accessory uses must be located behind the front wall of the building. Patch indicated that the ordinance also allows for open and outdoor storage within the I~2 Distriet as an accessory use provided that the storage is screened from view from the public right~of-way; the storage area is grassed or surf~lCed to control dust; and that all lighting shall be hooded and so dirccted that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of..way. Patch reported that Simonson's proposes to expand the storagc maintaining a fence ~5- Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/04 . the same distance away from Oakwood Drive and in-line with the existing storage yard. It appears that when the original fencc was installed, the fence was located on the outside of the landseaped area, toward Oakwood Drive. Coniferous trces were planted on the inside of the fence. As long as the trees and fence remain in place, the required side yard sctback appcars to be met; however, if the trees are removcd and the material storage is expanded all the way to the fcnce, a side yard sctback violation would occur. Patch stated that from an eni'l)fCement standpoint, location of the trecs inside of the fence is impractical. Landscaping could easily deteriorate until rcmoved or removed without an understanding as to the acsthetic purpose. According to Simonson's, Xcel Encrgy has rcquested that Simonson's move the 30 trees plantcd along Oakwood Drive to another location due to power lines along the wcst property line. Patch stated that this is an issuc all the way down Oakwood. Patch asked O'Ncill whethcr the trces were planted bcfore or after the power lines placement. O'Neill stated that he was unsure of the order. Patch stated that in any case, trees need to be transplantcd and Simonson's still needs to providc the minimum number oftrce plantings as rcquired by ordinance. Patch indicated that there are alternatc locations for the plantings. Simonson's has agreed to move thc trees and to providc additional landscaping. . Simonson's has not submitted a land survey to verify locations on the propcrty. The existing fence line appears to be approximately only 15 feet away from the property line along Oakwood Drivc as opposed to the requircd 30 fect setback. Patch stated that staff is recommending approval based on the conditions as outlincd. Frie asked how it was that Simonson's was able to place the trees inside thc fence. O'Neill indicated that the location of plantings is their choicc. Therc is no ordinance that requires the trccs to be planted on the outside of the fence; the only requiremcnt is that scrccning of the stored materials is provided. O'Neill indicated thcy had complied with the original CUP allowing outdoor storagc. Frie noted that Simonson's had no represcntative present. He asked if the motion would be considered withdrawn or inapplicable if the conditions were not met. Grittman stated that a discussion could be held with thc applicants in that case, or that Commission could approve the CUP as recommendcd, at which timc Simonson's could than address thc Commission if they did not agrec with the conditions. Patch indicated that Planning Commission could layout the parameters of the fencing expansion and thcn staff could ovcrsee how that is carried out. . Frie inquired whether Patch had mct with Simonson's. Patch stated that he had not personally met with reprcsentativcs on this application, but he had spoken with them. Patch recommends that for any request, a land survey should bc providcd. He -6- Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/04/04 . commented that the Commission could choose to table the item until a land survey is provided. frie indicated he is not comfortable granting the request with the weight of the conditions without Simonson's input. Chairman frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten inquired why Simonson's would need to provide a surety for landscaping. Patch stated that a letter of credit is required by ordinance in a form that would renew every year until landscaping is completed so that if the landscaping is not installed, the City can draw on the letter of credit and install it. Carlson asked if conditions encompassed the entire area. Patch re-stated that a lack of survey makes a decision as it relates to the entire property difficult. Posusta indicated that all the applicant really wants to do is expand outdoor storage. He stated that he did not understand the need for all the landscaping and screening. . O'Neill stated that staff is simply following the code. Specifically, the code requires a planting every 50 lineal feet. O'Neill recommended that if there is an issue with the code, it should be addressed separately. O'Neill stated that there is a problem with the trees being cut by the power company. Although staff likes trees outside of fence, it does result in placement in the area of the power lines. O'Neill indicated that staff does not want to tell the applicant exactly where to put the fence. Posusta inquired about the condition that the applicant must setback the fence. Posusta wondered whether the fence can be right on property line as they are in other areas. O'Neill stated that if this fenceline is on a right of way, and thus the ordinance may be more restrictive with regards to setback and height. Frie stated that the Commission is not trying to stymie growth or expansion, they are just seeking clarification on those items that do not meet the ordinance in order to resolve procedural issues. A MOTION WAS MADE BY TO FRIE TO CONTINUE TI-IE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTED STAFf TO CONTACT SIMONSON LUMBER IN ORDER TO WORK TOWARD RESOLVING THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z FOR THE JUNE MEETING AND FOR THE APPLICANT TO APPROACH THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME. . MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 8. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision to create two buildable lots in an R-I district; a request for a variance to create a single-fami Iy lot of less than 12,000 square feet in an R-l district; and a request for a conditional use permit allowing for an accessory use structure to exceed 10% of the rear yard area. Applicant: Darren Klatt. Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that the applicant is seeking approval of a subdivision of his property at the corner of Washington and Broadway. The property, a lot 01'22,061 square feet, is currently occupied by a single family home and detached garage. The proposal would remove the existing garage, split the property into two parcels, and add an over-sized detached garage to the parcel containing the existing home. Because at least one of the lots would not meet the minimum 12,000 square foot minimum, a lot area variance is necessary. Grittman noted that to qualify for a variance, the request is to be reviewed as to whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, there arc a number of single family homes on lots of 10,890 square feet in the neighborhood - the size of lots in the "Original Plat" of Monticello. A such, a variance may be appropriate if the City considers that reasonable use would include a single family lot of this size. The applicant's proposal, however, includes a lot of 12,030 squarc feet for the existing home site, and 10,030 square feet for the new home site. The new site would be the only lot requiring a variance, but it would not be as large as original plat lots. Orittman provided an alternative, by which the applicant could subdivide the property into two 11,000 square foot lots. To accomplish this, the lot line would be established about 3 feet south of the existing deck. To provide access to the garage, a common driveway shared by the two parcels, could be located across the common property line. This would limit access to Washington Street, which would be more likely to be supported by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the applicant also proposes to construct a new garage of 1,200 square feet, served by a driveway that wraps around the home and occupies most of the rear and side yard areas of the lot. 'l'he area of the rear yard is less than 6,400 square feet. The zoning ordinanee provides for detaehed garages that cover no more than 10% of the rear yard, limiting the recommended size of the garage in this case to less than 640 square feet. One of the criteria for this allowanccis that the parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open spacc on the lot. Grittman recommended reduced size due to the size oflot. In summary, Grittman recommended that the minimum lot standards for the older part of town, at 10,890 square feet, should be met. Additionally, a CUP would bc appropriate for 720' if the applicant were to move the existing garage. If the -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . applicant did not subdivide, the] ,200 square foot garage would be consistent with the ordinance, as an alternative. Frie asked what would have been the applicant's preference. Patch indicated that they were open to reducing the size of the garage. The applicants also indicated to him that they could only shift the lot line a small amount due to the house and garage placement. Patch stated that their preference seemed to be to maintain two separate driveways as they sought to avoid property disputes that may be at issue with common driveway. Carlson inquired whether separate driveways would work with a subdivided lot. Grittman indicated that it would depend on the lot lines. (i-rittman commented that it appeared that the only way to accomplish the 10,890 was to establish a common driveway. Grittman also recommended a driveway easement for both properties and a maintenance agreement recorded against both lots. Posusta asked how they would be assessed with two driveways. Grittman stated that with two parcels, even though there is one driveway, both would be assessed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Darren Klatt, 742 E. Broadway, addressed the Commission, affirmed that his first preference is separate driveways, due to access and maintenance issues. Harry Klatt, applicant's father, addressed the Commission, stating that the main concern seems to be the lot area. He indicated that their proposed plan averages out to 10,890 each lot. Carlson noted averaging isn't applicable, each lot needs to be ] 0,890 square feet. A discussion commenced on alternatives to achieving needed lot areas. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that the shared driveway is an alternative if they cannot get two driveways and meet still meet the minimum lot size. Hilgart questioned whether hardship had been demonstrated. Grittman stated that the standard for approving variance is that the physical condition creates the hardship. Grittman noted that reasonable use in this neighborhood was deemed by stall to be that lot size is consistent with the neighborhood. If this is a reasonable use, it would be a hardship to not allow him to utilize the property as such. Hilgart indicated that in that case, he prefers that the minimum 10,890 is required. Darren Klatt asked if property line needed to be straight. Grittman indicated that because WashingtonlBroadway is angled, there is an opportunity for the lot line to be . -9- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . angled as well. Grittman also noted that the driveway can be shifted to whatever works for the property; its area does not need to be divided equally. Posusta suggested that for the proposed home, by nipping garage to the back, the property owners could use one another's driveway for backing purposes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND LOT AREA VARIANCES FOR BOTH LOTS, WITH TIlE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED LOT LINE IS MOVED TO MAKE BOTII LOTS MORE THAN 10,890 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, THE SIZE OF LOTS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT AREA, AND A CONDITION THAT THE PARCELS SHARE A COMMON DRIVEWAY, OR TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS, PROVIDED THAT THE MINIMUM LOTS AREA OF 10,890 SQUARE FEET IS RETAINED FOR BOTH LOTS. TI-HS MOTION WOULD BE BASED ON A FINDING TlIA TREASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY TN THIS AREA WOULD BE -rwo SINGLE F AMIL Y PARCELS WITH LOT AREAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREDOMINANT LOT SIZE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Grittman noted that as the existing garage appears to be 720 square feet, they would need a conditional use permit to move that garage. He recommended that eh CUP approval contain a contingency for the re-use. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAl, OF THE CUP TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE NOT TO EXCEED 720' SQUARE FEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CUP PROVIDES FOR A GARAGE CONSISTENT WITH -rI-lE SINGLE FAMILY USE. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat in an R-2 district, and a request fiJr variance to the required setbacks. Applicant: Richard Carlson Grittman provided thc staff report, relating that the applicant is seeking a Developmcnt Stage PUD approval t'cJr a 3-unit townhouse project on propcrty at the end of Vine Street, adjacent to the Burlington Northcrn RR, south of 4th Street. The applicant is also sceking a Preliminary Plat to establish the lots and right of way, and a variance to allow the building to be located within about one foot of the common property line with the railroad linc. The variances wcre identificd during a statr review of the plan. . Grittman noted that thc City had approved a Concept Plan for a PUD showing three -10- Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/04/04 . units aligned behind the existing single family homes, similar to the proposed layout. With the submission of an engineered plan set, there are a number of items that raise issues for City PUD approval. Grittman outlined those issues. He stated that the proposed townhomes are provided access from a private street that extends east from the Vine Street cul-de-sac. The PUD section of the zoning ordinance permits private streets, however, the minimum width of such streets is 20 feet. The proposed width is 16 feet due to the narrow dimension of the property. It is noted that the driveway is surrounded by curb, consistent with other previous PUD project requirements. Grittman noted that due to lower density in this project, it is not likely to cause traffic issues and therefore does not need the recommended two parking spaces in front of each garage, as well as an additional parking space for each three units to accommodate overflow visitor parking. . In addressing the variance request, Grittman referred to the setback issue. Grittman indicated that the easternmost unit extends to within 10 feet of the east property line. This line is the one opposite the Vine Street frontage, and would be considered the rear yard. The R-2 District rear yard setback is 30 feet. The westernmost unit extends to within about one foot of the south property line along the railroad. The R-2 District side yard setback is 10 feet. Grittman indicated that flexibility has been considered for other projects near the railroad, however a one foot setback is more than that considered in other applications. Grittman stated that because a permitted use could be located on the property in a way that meets the ordinance, no hardship exists to support the variance request. Grittman noted that a PUD may Hex internal setbacks, while respecting external setbacks. Grittman explained that the applicant had provided a landscaping plan which staff would encourage be greatly enhanced as a part of any approval. Grittman stated that the application has also raised concerns related to the layout of the plat, due to confusion over ownership of the underlying title to Vine Street. He recommended a plat that clearly establishes Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 1 (if three units are approved), Outlot A of Block 2 and dedicated right of way clearly spelled out on the plat for Vine Street. Grittman recommended that the City join in the plat to clarify any claim to title in the land underlying the street. Grittman indicated that the City Engineer has also provided additional comments on utilities and drainage, which had been provided to the Commission and applicant in a letter that evcning. Those comments should be incorporated into terms of approval. For rcasons rclated to setbacks, Grittman stated that staff is not comfortable recommending development stage PUD approval at this time. . -11- Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/04/04 . Frie asked Grittman if prior to concept approval, the City had stubbed in sewer and water for three units. Grittman stated that when the City stubs in connections, that is an estimate based on what may be placed on the sitc. O'Neill asked Grittman to discuss bricfly the uniqueness of this site in terms of front and back yards. For instance, could this site be treated as if it had 3 side yards in order to accomplish a reduced setback? Grittman stated that the ordinance is distinct in that,the portion that fronts on public street is thc "front". The propcrty line opposite the "front" is the rear. What is left over is the side yard. In stail's view, that requires 30 foot front and rear yards. Grittman notcd the only time that is flexible is when there is more than one street frontage. O'Neill clarified that the presence of the railroad and building orientation doesn't have anything to do with definition of yards. O'Neill also asked Grittman if he knew of any cases where they city allowed flexing of setbacks for PUD. Grittman indicated that Emerald Village was given 20 t()()t instead of 30 on a corner lot due to street frontage. Chairman Frie open cd the public hearing. Syble Bondhus, 624 4lh Strcet West, inquired how far from property line the applicant has to stay back from property line and inquired about staking on or near her property. . The applicant, Richard Carlson, 532 West Broadway, addressed the Commission. Carlson clarified that the surveyors had found a previously existing iron marker, which is what the stake identified. Lynn Becker, Bondhus' daughter, asked Carlson to clarify drainage. Grittman indicated that drainage should go down the drivcway, to Vine Street and then be picked up by a catch basin or swale. It would not impact Ms. Bondhus' property. Dcnnis Licciardi, 606 4th Street West expressed concerns over how close the proposed projcct is to his property. Frie asked if Liccardi's lot is vacant or developed. Licciardi indicated that it is currently vacant, but he wants to develop. Discussion commenced on Licciardi's property. Licciardi indicated that he had not received a public hearing notice. Frie directcd stail to look into the matter. Frie asked Carlson how the proposed preliminary plat diiTers from the concept in addressing issues prescnt at that time. Carlson stated that initially the abstract stated that the City of Monticcllo and railroad had vacated Vine Strect. At that time, three detached units were being look cd at. Thc current proposal is very similar to what was considcred when detached was determined to bc infeasible. . Fried asked if this would be an association development. Carlson stated it would be. -12- Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/04 . Carlson indicated that he had completed an informal survey of setbacks on other City approved projects. Carlson specifically identified what appeared to be deviations of the setback code for the Hans Hagen, MLC, Emerald Village and Central Minnesota Housing Project developments. Carlson stated that he chose the property specifically because the closest property that would be directly impacted by his development would be approximately 175 feet away. Carlson reported that he has not seen the City Engineer's comments. After a brief discussion on drainage, O'Neill stated that the engineer's comments seem to be routine and can be resolved. Posusta asked if Carlson paid for storm drainage. Carlson indicated that he will pay for those improvements and the three utility stubs. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. . Hilgart asked for Orittman and O'Neill's comments on the setback variations on other City approved projects outlined by Carlson. Grittman clarified Hans Hagen has no setback requirements by code for the Central Community District. The CMHP is in an R-3, not R-2 district, and was done as zero lot line project. Emerald Village's setback variations were allowed due to public frontage, and they maintained other setbacks. Orittman stated that staff had worked with the developer on the MLC project to get all the units to fit within sethacks. At this time, staff is not aware that it does not. Grittman cannot comment on the Front Porch project. Hilgart does not see a hardship for the project, hut does think that other items can be resolved. Dragsten indicated that the rear yard setback is an issue, and also believes that all other issues can be resolved. Posusta stated that he thinks the project would he a worthwhile addition to the area. Carlson indicated that he had not had an opportunity to revise plans based on these comments, hut is willing to do so. Frie indicated that project eould work with the exception of the setbacks. Frie asked what direction statl can provide to make the project work. Grittman answered that the Commission should indicate whether they would agree to a setback variance and if so, how much. Dragsten said he is receptive to a 20' rear and 5' side yard setback. Frie asked what the intent of Outlot A is. Carlson stated that the Vine Street conveyance has still not been resolved. Frie asked if it would be an issue fl)f approval. Grittman stated that if it is portrayed as right of way on the revised preliminary plat, it will be resolved. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT 'fHE -13- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD APPROVAL AS LIs'rED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TI IA T THE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY GRANTED BY TIlE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN A PROJECT OF SUPERIOR DESIGN AND AMENITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITH CARLSON ABSTAINING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMfNARY PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT MEETS TIlE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITH CARLSON A8ST AINING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SET BACK OF 20' ON THE EAST SIDE, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5' ON THE SOUTH SIDE, BASED ON A FINDING TI-IA T THE LOT DIMENSIONS CREATE A I-IARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER THE STRICT ZONING STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. . Grittman, on behalf of publ ie works, appealed for a 6' foot side yard set back DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO REQUIRE A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6'. AMENDMENT SECONDED BY FRIE. Carlson asked about north side setbacks. Grittman clarified that the north side requires 10' setback for buildings, and 3' setback for drives. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITl I CARLSON A8ST AINING. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept stage planned unit development in a B-3 district. Applicant: Holiday Stationstores/W endy' s Grittman requested tabling this item based on a request from the applicant, stating that it is staff s understanding that Holiday wi II be submitting a revised plan for an upcoming meeting. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. . MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -14- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the R-IA zoning district design standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission O'Neill requested tabling this item, as stail continucs to research the standard in order to develop a recommendation for the commission. MOTION TO CON'fINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reo nest to re-zone a 59.14 acre parcel from Agricultural~Open Space (A-O) to Regional Business (B-4). Aprlicant: City of Monticello. O'Neill provided the staiTreport, asking the Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning map that would change the current designation of a 59.14 acre parcel formerly known as the "Remmele" property from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to B-4 (Regional Business). The Remmele property, though currently zoned A-O is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use. O'Neill indicated that it is appropriate to consider an update to the zoning district designation at this time due to a proposal to develop a commercial use on a portion of this parcel. O'Neill stated that under the proposal, the City will likely act as the developer by platting the property, developing the needed infrastructure and selling lots to commercial interests. O'Neill stated that a preliminary plat for the site showing road and parcel layout wiII be reviewed at an upcoming meeting oi'the Planning Commission. The plat will illustrate the location of a proposed theater site and relationship to roadways and other parcels to be developed at a future time. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Sarah Seidenkranz and Aaron Cahill, 3786 I Icyward Court, addressed the Commission, expressing their concern about the proposal zoning designation for regional business. They had been told at the time they purchased their property that the land was owned by the city and could be used for schools and parks. Both indicatcd that they did not want commercial and regional business directly behind their home. Frie asked fIX clarification of where their home is. Cahill indicated that their backyard is adjacent to Remmele propcrty. They also indicated that they had not received a public hearing notice. -15- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . O'Neill stated that due to the growth and development in the area, the County may not have the updated their information, which is where the City gets their notice information. O'Neill referred to the significant buffer zone code requirements between residential and commercial areas. O'Neill stated that money is held from the Groveland developer for the buffer and that there will be butTer requirements on the developers side, which is the City. Cahill questioned how close the commercial development would to the homes. Grittman stated that there is a 50 foot setback and 40 foot landscape requirement as bufTer. Frie stated that the Parks Commission would take the park request into consideration. Frie indicated that resident input was appreciated. Carlson stated that they should connect with City on getting their address information listcd for public hearing. lIearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that the requested zoning designation has been in comprehensive plan for a number ofycars. . Frie questioned the City's role as a developer. O'Neill stated that the land was acquired as a result of the sale of the Remmelc Engineering project. The City agreed to take land to purchase the land in order to encourage Remmele to loeate to a more desirable location. O'Neill indicated that the City had considered how best to handle the development of the property. It is staff's perspective that the City would be most responsible developer of this property. O'Neill commented that the funds from this project could offset other projects. Carlson, Frie and Posusta expressed concern over the City's role as developer. A discussion commenced on the procedure of the City acting as a developer. O'Neill indicated that Council has encouraged staff not to allow piecemeal development. Acting as a developer on this piece would prohibit disconnected development of that nature. O'Neill stated that the motivation of the City is not to make money, but to create a bettcr dcvelopmcnt. O'Neill clarified that thcre was no potential buyer until now. Frie indicated that he hopes the Council will havc a discussion on this topic. MUT'ION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST FOR THE SUBJECT "REMMELE" PARCEL FROM A~O TO B-4 USE, BASED ON THE FINIJING llIAT THE PROPOSED DISTRICT DESIGNATION IS CONSIS'fENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. . -16- Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/04 13. Planning Staff Update - Swan River Montessori School . O'Neill stated that Patch is working with Sunny Fresh to move the old Methodist Church to the west side of Community Center grounds, in conjunction with a proposed charter Montessori school. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by Council. A school use is a permitted use in the CCD and therefore there will be no required review by Planning Commission. Sunny Fresh has agreed to pay for the move, with the City holding the building on the foundation until the establishment of the Charter school and associated funding. Ultimately, the church will remain a public building with City having first right if the school doesn't succeed. Carlson questioned the City's investment. O'Neill elarified that it is a pubic school; the city is not investing any funds, only land. All applicable fees would still be charged. 14. Planning Staff Update - Home Depot O'Neill referred to a letter provide by Home Depot, indicating that they arc no longer seeking to build on the previously proposed site. They are optimistic about finding another location within the City. 15. Planning Commission Vacancy - Applicant Report . MOTION BY FRIE TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 18th WITH PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUNNY FRESII PUD BEGINNING AT 6:00 PM, WITH INTERVIEWS or PLANNING COMMISSION CANDIDATES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. Adiourn A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . -17-