Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-06-2004 . . . Members: MINUTES REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 6th, 2004 6:00 P.M. Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann S talT: Council Liaison: 1. 2. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting a full quorum of the Commission and the presence of Council Liasion Posusta. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, June 1, 2004 and the special meeting held Monday, May 18. 2004. Spartz noted a correction to pages 11 and 12 of the minutes, indicating that he had abstained on the motions relating to the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition. MOTION BY l-HLGART TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF JUNE 151', 2004 AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 18'1'11,2004. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Frie requested the addition of an update from City stall on future planning efforts and Comprehensive Plan updates as item 14. Citizen comments. Cheryl Steinmetz, 9313 Eagle Court, addressed the Commission on behalf of a group of neighbors in the area adjacent to the proposed Oeello rezone. Steinmetz inquired whether . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 there are buffer requirements related to the rezone from light industrial to commercial. Steinmetz stated that property owners also have concerns about incrcased traffic. Frie responded that those questions would be addressed during the public hearing. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance rcgarding minimum fenee setbacks and maximum fence heights on parcels with multiple street frontages. Applicant: City of Montieello Planning Commission Patch presented the staff report to the Commission. Patch indicated that the decision made by Commission on the fence ordinance amendment would impact agenda item number six, which is a fence variance request. Patch explained that for corner and double fronting lots, the current fence ordinance appears to unreasonably limit usable yard arca by imposing a 15 foot street side setback on all sides abutting a property line for fences exceeding 36 inches in height. The 15 foot setback for tall front yard fences is intended to improve front yard aesthetics and provide for public safety by prohibiting obstructions to sight lines adjacent to driveways. Patch stated that the suggested changes to the ordinance provide a reduced setback, at six feet, for tall fences on yards other than the front yard. This will add 9 feet to the yard area inside a fence on a corner or double fronting lot, while providing for a six foot landscaped yard on the outside of the fence, buffering the fence from the street. Patch cited School Boulevard as a specific example where there are many existing fences constructed along the rear and side property lines abutting public strcets. Patch stated that while these fences are not eonsidered to be blight, they do not provide for a landscaped setback area that softens the appearance toward the publie street. Patch stated that staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance ehange. Frie clarified that amending this ordinance would mean that the next request would no longer be needed. Patch indieated that would be aeeurate. O'Neill asked Patch to outline the benefits to the property owner with the proposed amendment. Patch referred to a diagram of the Quinn/Sylvers request, stating that a 15 foot setback would bring the fence considerably into the useable yard area. The 6 foot setback adds a large amount of usable spaee back to the yard. Patch also explained that with the eurrent ordinanee, the area outside of the fence isn't really usable by the property owners, but still needs to be maintained. Posusta asked what the distance from the curb to the fence would be. Patch stated that the average distance from back of curb to fence would be 22 feet versus 30 feet. - ~ - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Posusta inquired if the same fence regulations would apply to a commercial property, as with the previous fencing request by Simonson Lumber. Patch stated that due to variables in curb lines, only a certified land surveyor is able to determine exact property lines. Posusta also referred to possible blight on the sides of property lines where two fence lines arc adjacent to one another, but not shared. Posusta questioned whether there should be a provision within the ordinance that property owners share a fence line in such cases. Patch indicated that those matters are difIicult to regulate by ordinance. Posusta asked if property owners agreed, could they share a property line fence. Patch stated that in that case, the building inspector would recommend a fence line agreement. Posusta asked staflto explain the 25' foot visibility triangle recommended in the amendment. Patch stated that the measurement is common in many ordinances, as it is necessary for visibility for cross-street tratlic. Patch also indicated that setbacks for outdoor storage would nced to be addressed in relationship to view obstruction. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if under the proposed ordinance amendment, a front yard fence could only be 3 feet high. Patch stated that for lots with double-frontages, the side fronting a public street, not the front yard, could be 6 feet. Carlson asked how practical a 3 foot fence is. Patch stated that Planning Commission had recommended that specific fence height. Staff had originally recommended 4 feet. Spartz stated that his biggest concern is the line of sight addressed by the visibility triangle. Patch stated that while there are situations where the lot is somcwhat curved, the clear view triangle provision would prevent obstruction in most cases. MOTION BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TlIA T Tl--llS ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, ITEM [F] OF THE MONI'ICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, EST ABLISJIING REGULA TIONSFOR TJ--IE INST AILA TJON OF FENCES BE APPROVED. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the minimum setback requirement for fence placemcnt. Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tylee Sylvers Chair Frie inquired about the propcr procedure for this item aftcr approving the ordinance amendment. Grittman recommended a review and decision on the item as proper process. - :-\ - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Aaron Quinn, 9893 Park Place Drive, inquired about the additional landscaping requirements in the amended ordinance. Patch clarified that if the fence was set beyond any existing landscaping, they would need to provide additional landscaping. Patch and Quinn discussed visibility issues for fencing versus landscaping. Patch stated that neither the fence nor the landscaping can obstruct view. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hcaring no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO DENY THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S INTENDED REQUEST BEING ALLOW ABLE UNDER THE PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED AMENDMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a comprehensivc plan amendment and zonin~ map amendment to accommodate a chan~e in land-use from Light Industrial (II-A) to Regional Business (8-4). Applicant: Ocello, LLC Grittman presented the staff report for the rezone request. The property is located at the corner of Oakwood and School Boulevard and is currently designated for industrial use. The applicant is seeking a rezone to Regional Business, a B-4 designation. Grittman noted the significant amount of current and proposed commercial activity already in the area. Staif believes that the proposed commercial use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is in the best interest of the City in the long-term. Grittman stated that staff recommends a Comprehensive Plan amendment and re-zone for this site. Grittman commented that there has been a loss of industrial property through rezones in the past years, noting that the Plamling Commission and staff will need to look at relocating industrial designations. Fric asked what the size of the parcel is. Shawn Wienand, OceJlo, LLC, stated that the parcel is approximately 32.3 acres. Frie did note his concern about loss of industrial property. Shawn Weinand clarified that he had previously offered the site to the Industrial Development Committee, who had indicated that it was perhaps not best suited to industrial uses in comparison to othcr sites. Grittman responded to earLier comments from the public, stating that thcre is currently no spccific dcvelopment proposal for the site. Once dcvelopment is proposed, buffer yards are required bctween commcrcial and residential uses. This request is strictly arc-zone. Fric also clarified that whcn a project is proposed, ncighboring property owners - -1 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 would again be notified. Weinand confirmed that there are no currcnt proposals. Chair Frie opencd the public hearing. Harold Moe, resident, inquired whether there would be truck traffic along County 117. Weinand indicated that a B-4 zoning designation would not add any additional traffic ovcr what would have occurred under industrial zoning. Grittman stated that as Edmonson (County 117) is one of the City's dcsignated collector routcs, staff would hesitate recommending restricting truck traffic on that street. However, that issue could be addrcssed when a development proposal comes forward. Posusta relayed that truck traffic would take the most direct route, which is not likely to be along Edmonson. Dragsten asked about other the property adjacent to this parcel. Grittman clarified that it is also B-4. lIearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT COMMERCIAL LAND USE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE USE FOR THIS SITE, AND THAT THE CITY'S LONG- RANGE DEVELOPMENT BEST SUPPORTS THE CONCENTRATION OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THIS AREA. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Frie noted the need to find other industrial land as part of future planning. 8. Public llearin~ -- Consideration of a request for a zoning map and comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate a change in land use from Light Industrial fll-A) to a Commercial/Industrial pun. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC Grittman reviewed the stafTreport, stating that this request is also another proposed rezone from industrial to commercial use. . Grittman indicated that the rezonc had been addressed as a future step under a concept PUD discussed several months ago. The approved concept plan PUD included a series of commercial uses that would be allowed in addition to the industrial uses. The list of commercial uses proposed at that time was pared to include only those most compatible with freeway exposure. Staff has attempted to analyze the previous approval in conjunction with the new request to develop a recommendation. - ,Ii - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Grittman stated that previous discussion related to this parcel points toward a PUD zoning. Grittman indicated that staff had created draft language to address this unique situation. Grittman explained that if such a rezone were approved, the zoning map would change to pun ,md the City would need to adopt an ordinance that lists the specific uses and performance standards. Staffhave outlined in the proposed language all of the current Il-A uses as well as the applicant's intended commercial uses. Grittman noted that outdoor storage would be a prohibited use. Grittman explained that in a rezone to PUD, any standards not outlined within the ordinance amendment would default to B-4. Grittman also explained that by zoning the parcel as a PUD, it would eliminate the need for the applicant or developer to request a CUP for each use not outlined as permitted. Grittman stated that the applicants would like to have a higher percentage of commercial uses than was originally intended in the concept stage approval. As such, Grittman explained that the second option outlined for Commission allows the parcel to go beyond a mixed~use to a commercial~use district. Grittman explained that in order to be most consistent with original intent, staff believe that the PUD zoning would be most suitable. Grittman referred again to the loss of industrial property, noting that at the time of concept approval for this site, the Commission sought the opportunity to maintain industrial areas. . Frie inquired about the difTerences between a B-3 and 8-4 zoning district. Grittman stated that the B-4 is more comprehensive, allowing more commercial uses than B-3. A rezone to a B-3 or B-4 district would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. O'Neill noted that the IDC recommended commercial uses for this parcel. Dragsten asked how the land layout for rezoning was decided. Grittman stated that it was brought forward by the applicants. It is ref1ective of the future Chelsea Road alignment and the City's efforts to create a municipal industrial park. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta, 4 795 West 14 ih, Savage, spoke to the Commission on behalf of Otter Creek, LLC. Bilotta indicated that he had questions regarding staffs recommendation. First, he questioned whether the standards would be B-3 or 8-4, or those included in the proposed PUD language. Bilotta noted that the PUD standards seem more restrictive. Grittman responded that the PUD standards would apply to the extent that they do not cover something already stated in the ordinance. Bilotta stated that the more restrictive standards would limit both commercial and industrial uses and that the recommendation doesn't seem to fit with what the concept plan intended. . Frie asked if it was the applicant's understanding that the concept stage proposal was going to allow B-3 or B-4 uses. O'Neill clarified that the document they were referring to outlining the proposed uses actually came from the applicant. - (i - . Planning Commission Minutes 07106/04 Frie questioned if the purchase agreement with the City is contingent on the zoning designation of the parccl. Bilotta stated that City staff had proposed the rezoning idca due to a new assessment plan for Chelsea Road. Bilotta indicated that a term of the purchase agreement necessitated the rezoning. Bilotta indicated that Otter Creek is confused by the recommendation against rezoning. Frie stated that he would also like clarification on how the intended land use for this parcel seems to be in question. O'Neill statcd that City rcpresentatives for the negotiation are not present to review the terms for land use on the project. O'Neill also remarked that one side of thc road is inherently more valuable due to freeway frontage. O'Ncill stated that City Administrator Wolfsteller felt there was a variation in value due to that factor, even if both sides were zoned the same. The group that worked on thc land negotiations did not want to usurp Planning Commission's ability to look only at the issue of the best use of the land. It could be that a strongly commercial PUO or a B-4 zoning designation is appropriate. Fric stated that the problem seems to be the lack of the communication betwecn all parties, which may bc due to verbal agrcements between the parties. . Grittman reiterated that it is important not to make decisions without knowing with certainty what the City's intent for zoning in relationship to the land purchase actually is. Grittman stated that it would be ideal to tablc if Commission wanted that opinion. Bilotta stated that it scems as if two sections of City employees differ in terms of rezoning the parcel. Frie expressed concern about staffs apparent divergent opinions on zoning. ()'NeilI stated that planning staff cannot tell an applicant what zoning is going to be in order to secure a purchase agreement. Staff is simply trying to compartmentalize the land Llse decision from the property purchasc. Grittman statcd that Commission should make the dccision based on thc best use of the property. Grittman relayed that it was staffs responsibility to present their idea of best use. Ifthcre is a diffcrencc between what staff believe appropriate and what the applicant belicves, the Planning Commission needs to dctermine the ultimate result. John Chadwick, 1130 Zion Circle, Bloomington, addrcssed the Commission representing Otter Creek. Chadwick noted that the process has bcen positivc and is an ongoing one. The applicants wcre anticipating commercial zoning via a City document that requested the changc and what was reflected in their purchase agrcement. The proposed agreement stilllcaves 120 acres of industrial property. Chadwick commentcd on the recent annexation agreement as an opportunity for more industrial land use. Chadwick stated that they would likc B-3 or B-4 zoning. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closcd the public hearing. . Spartz indicated that he was also somewhat confused by the differenccs and would like staff s input. O'Neill stated that it is critical to make the decision in terms of land-use. - 7 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Spartz asked if percentages could vary in determining the amount of industrial versus commercial use. Staff clarified that could vary under the tenns of the PUD more easily than a straight industrial or commercial designation. Carlson stated that the site is a premier property due to visibility and that it is his impression that the applicant is looking for more leeway than what would be allowed under the PUD. Carlson asked City statT if the other properties adjacent to the freeway would be subject to restrictions or would general B-4 zoning be followed? Carlson expressed that it would be important to be consistent. Grittman stated that from the beginning, it was presumed that this parcel would be a PUD, which requires a higher standard than what would be allowed by a base zoning district. The advantage of a PUD to the applicant is more flexibility. In this case, that designation allows the developer more uses - a mix of commercial and industrial. Grittman noted that with that flexibility come higher standards for development, especially due to exposure. Frie asked if the PLJD's flexibility is to the advantage of the City or the applicant. Grittman stated that it is hoped that there are advantages for both. However, it is certainly for the applicant as it allows a broader mix of uses. Grittman stated that it was his understanding that the applicants sought a mix of both. . Frie inquired where the option to rezone to B-4 had come from. O'Neill stated that it had come from the applicant's desire for more commercial than outlined in the original PUD. Dragsten stated that it is important that this particular piece of property be zoned properly. I-Ie indicated that he would like to table a decision for 30 days to allow further review. Hilgart asked about size of the parcel. Chadwick clarified that it was approximately 47 acres. Hilgart stated his opinion that it makes sense to have commercial uses right along the freeway, with the industrial uses to the south. Posusta stated that he had sat in on a number of the land purchase negotiation meetings and he distinctly recalls discussing business uses between Chelsea and the freeway. He commented that if the applicant wants B-4 zoning, that should be the goal. Frie agreed that tabling may be the best option at this point. Frie asked Chadwick if he is receptive to tabling or ifhe would like the Planning Commission to make the decision. Chadwick replied that he preferred that a decision be made. Chadwick referred to a separation of uses as positive. Hilgart clarified that the applicant is fine with having no industrial uses in their section. Chadwick indicated that was correct. . MOTION BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN TilE LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL USE AND REZONING I'HE SITE TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS). - H - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Spartz asked about applicable standards for the district. O'Neill clarified that B-4 standards would apply. Grittman stated that it would not include the standards outlined in the report. Posusta noted that the applicants could request a PUD at a later time. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to approve a preliminary plat for Jefferson Commons, a commercial development in a B-4 district. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, explaining that the request for preliminary plat has been made to accommodate the request for commercial uses on the parcel. Jefferson Commons lies along the west side of Trunk Highway 25 at the intersection with School Boulevard. The property would include the extension of School Boulevard right of way to the property's west boundary, and the platting of approximately 55 acres of commercial land. Planning staff has looked at the plat in view of the B-3 standards, and the plat meets or exceeds those standards. Grittman noted that the plat does provide for a buller yard which conforms to ordinance requirements. Grittman stated that at the time the southern edge of the parcel develops, landscaping treatments in context to the southern property owners would be completed. Grittman outlined the current proposed uses on the plat, citing a Culver's Restaurant, ll)f which a CUP request is on this Planning Commission agenda. The second parcel is a lot of approximately 8 acres, planned for the Monticello Muller Theatre project, also on this agenda. The third lot will consist of the relocated commuter parking lot, owned by the City. The commuter parking lot will be moved to the Highway 25 and will serve the joint purpose of commuter parking and overflow parking for new husinesses in the area. Grittman explained that the remainder of the property will be reserved for future commercial use, with the exception of required ponding and the potential reservation of space for a future fire station location. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Daryl Cardinal, 9187 State Highway 25, addressed the Commission. Cardinal stated that attempts had already been made to remove an existing tree line adjacent to the property. He.asked if the tree line would remain. O'Neill stated that a buffer yard would be required with significant landscaping between the proposed commercial uses and the residential uses. O'Neill explained that if the trees arc far inside the property line, they may need to he taken down and replanted along a berm closer to the property line. In any case, the current landscaping would be taken into consideration. Frie clarified that they will remain as they arc until a development proposal comes forward, at which time a new public hearing would occur. Cardinal indicated that the diagram shows that his shed and well are not within his property line. O'Neill stated that the aerial lines arc hallpark, the - 9 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 survey lines on-site are accurate for property lines. Barry Voight, 3802 Hayward Court, spoke to the Commission. Voight expressed similar concerns, indicating that he is unfamiliar with buffer yard requirements. His concern is about families in the area. Voight inquired whether there is a possibi lity of adding a fence to create more of a barrier. Grittman stated that the ordinance requires first a separation, then vegetation; it does not specifically require fencing or berming. At the time of development, staff works with the developer to determine other buffering materials. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO APPROVE RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IN A B-4 ZONING DISTRICT, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY SP ARfZ. . Dragsten asked ifthc commuter parking lot would still maintain the possihility of being expanded or if it will be smaller than the current lot. O'Neill clarified that it is very close in size to the current lot, with some joint parking possible at the theatre. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a concept and development stage Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Muller Thcatres and the City of Monticello Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that Muller Theatres is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD that would allow development of an approximately 8 acre parcel as part of the Jefferson Commons plat previously approved. Grittman stated that the intent of the PUD is to allow the applicants to create a freestanding sign pad on a separate parcel along I-lighway 25. Except for limited PUD applications, off..site signs are not permitted. The PUD also accommodates the applicant's intent to provide parking at a slightly lower rate than the basic zoning standard, relying on overflow use of the City's commuter parking lot during peak periods. Orittman also indicated that the PUD allows for the use of a common service alley along the north (back) side of the huilding that will be shared with future commercial development. . Grittman detailed that the project itself is proposed to consist ofa 14 screen theatre eomplex, with a shell building constructed that would allow an expansion for 4 - 10- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 additional screens. During the interim period, the applieants propose to rent the future theatre space for retail uses. Grittman stated that the PUD allows flexibility for the shared parking, joint access drive and off':..site pylon sign. The City's advantages are improvements to the look of the building and the shared service drive, which leads to better use of land to the north and less impervious surfaeing. Grittman also referred to other comments on building design outlined in the staff report. Grittman noted the buffer yard requirement on the south boundary of the property, which the applicant has stated is not currently proposed to develop. At the time it does, they will provide buffer yard landscaping consistent with requirements. It is staffs opinion that the applicant intends to comply with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the PUD. . Frie asked if the theatre had originally intended 10 screens. Grittman clarified that the applieant had always sought expansion area for up to 18 screens. The acreage is consistent with what Council recommended for the purchase. Frie questioned the use of retail space and whether the City has input into that area. Grittman stated that it would be subject only to the 8-4 standards of the district. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Muller, 4940 541h Street NW, Maple Lake, addressed the Commission as applicant. Muller referred to the theater's history within the community and diseussed the theater project. Muller described the theater as a state-of':..the-art complex that would be an asset to the community. Frie asked about a timeframe fix construction. Muller stated they were hoping to be open in November. Frie asked about Muller's intent for the present downtown theater. Muller stated that they will sell the property; hc has already had inquiries. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if the sign sizes meet the ordinance. Grittman stated that they do meet the ordinance. Dragsten asked if it fIts in architecturally with what is being built south of the property. Michael Monn, AMCON architect for the project, prcsented a color rendering of the theatre. . Posusta asked if they will be doing cornice work on the building. Monn stated that as architect, they did not recommend them, as they are more specific to retail buildings. Posusta asked if some of the trees in the parking lot could go to the back of the parcel. - \I - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Monn stated that the scrvice drive does not allow space for plantings as the area beyond the common drive is no longer their property. Dragsten asked if there is enough parking to cover the full 18 screens. Grittman stated that there is enough parking providcd. Carlson questioned what would happen if any other applicant requested off-site signage not permitted by ordinance. Grittman stated that thcy would also need to request a PUD. Spartz asked if there is any hazard to the park and ridc facility if traffic increases on the service drive. O'Neill stated that the drive would be built to handle the expccted traffic. Frie inquired whether increased traffic pressure would occur on School Boulevard and Highway 25 with the entrances to Culver's and the theatre. O'Neill indicated that a signal is planned, as well as protected turn areas. O'Neill stated that staff has completed an in- depth analysis to make sure circulation works well. O'Neill also clarified that Highway 25 will be four lanes to Buffalo by approximately 2009. . MOTION BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN SUPERIOR LAND USE AND EFFICIENCY OF SITE DESIGN AND USAGE. THE PUD ACCOMMODATES AN OFF-SITE FREESTANDING SIGN, SHARED PARKING WITH THE CITY'S COMMUTER PARKING LOT, AND SETBACK FLEXIBILITY ACCOMMODATING A COMMON SERVICE DRIVE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDE ENIIANCED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE LISTED BELOW. 1. Parking lot construction. The plans appear to envision that no curb line is constructed delineating thc south edge to the parking area. The zoning ordinancc requires that all parking lots are surrounded by a continuous concrcte curb barrier to control traffic and drainage. The existing curb surrounds the current commuter parking, and must be modified to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. Parking lot construction. The west boundary of the parking lot anticipates future expansion of the lot to the west. In such cases where future expansion is planned, the City has permitted a temporary asphalt curb or other measures that control drainage as interim improvements pending the penl1anent expansion. It is noted that while the theatre is not occupying the entire building, the space will be used by retail tenants. As such, the City should reserve the right to require full parking lot construction prior to the theatre expansion in the event that overflow parking conflicts become a problem for either the street or the commuter parking lot. . 3. South boundary buffer yard. The zoning ordinance requires a buffer yard between commercial and residential uses. The applicant is rcquired to install one-half of the buffer yard requirements due to the mature landscaping in place along the residential boundary. - 12 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07106104 This would require a buffer yard width of 15 feet and 60 "plant units" per 100 linear feet of common boundary. Essentially, this will require an open planting of evergreen trees, or preferably, a continuous screen planting of larger evergreen shrubs such as junipers. 4. Landscape materials sizes. The zoning ordinance requires that 15% of all trees are planted with a caliper size of 3.5 inches. There are 66 proposed deciduous trees on the plan, 10 ofwhieh should be identified for 3.5 caliper inehes in size. 5. Pylon signage for the theatre site is limited to a single sign as proposed, not including direetional signs. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for a convenience food establishment in a B-4 (Regional Business) district. Applicant: Culver's of Monticello Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that Culver's of Monticello has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction ofa Culver's restaurant on a 1.5 acre site on the Jefferson Commons plat, which is zoned B-3, Highway Business. . Grittman noted that the applicant did a great job of responding to staff comments and in most cases, the plans provided meet or exceed code requirements. Staff has requested only slight modifications or requested additional documentation to illustrate how plans meet the code. Grittman stated that some of those comments include the addition of striping in open areas to help site circulation and the submission of a photometric reading for lighting near School Boulevard. Grittman explained that the School Boulevard entrance would be the main entrance to what is expected to be an active commercial area. As such, the City is recommending a "plaza" treatment within the right of way. Those plans do not affect the Culver's site plan, with the exception of small pedestrian access to that space. Grittman indicated that staff is recommending approval of the CUP, noting the few staff comments and well-prepared plans. Frie inquired if the sidewalk would go cast to Highway 25. Grittman stated that it would, allowing pedestrians to connect to the sidewalk along the Wal-Mart property by way of the Edina Realty sidewalk. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Site architect Chris McGuire, 4675 Shinrock Road, McCon Contracting, addressed the Commission. McGuire requested that the applicant be allowed to use concrete surfacing - 1:-:;- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 on the patio area, rather than the pavers recommended for the proposed plaza. Grittman stated that they would not ask the applicant to match surfaces, rather just to work with staiT to provide the requested connection. Dragsten asked if the City Engineer has had an opportunity to review grading, drainage and utility plans. Grittman stated that they have not been reviewed in detail, however, they had been reviewed in terms of site planning for this request. O'Neill stated that the engineers did not see anything that would change the overall plan. Dragsten commended the applicants on a well put-together plan. Posusta asked whether the small monument sign had been requested by staff over another design. McCon stated that although it was requested by staft~ traffic patterns and the location of the store made it the appropriate choice in comparison to other store signs. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON A FINDING THAI' 'fHE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, . SUBJECT TO THE fOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Adding a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the restaurant from the sidewalk on School Blvd. 2. Work with the City to ensure that street lighting will be in conformance with city plans for School Blvd. 3. Plans showing the proposed paving design for the outdoor patio and public sidewalks as coordinating with the paving design for the City's plaza concept for School Blvd. City staff is currently developing this design, and will work with the applicant on this project. 4. Review and approval of grading, drainage and utility plans by the City Engineer. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit for a concept stage Planned Unit Development for 41 detached townhomes in a PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) district. Applicant: UP Development Grittman provided the staif report, noting the difference in site location than what was provided on the aerial image in the staff report. The site is designated as PZM, in which the City allows mid- and sometimes high density housing. . Grittman eXplained that the concept plan represents a detached townhouse development on small lots which rely on private street access to gain access to the units themselves. - 1/1. - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 The unit fronts face common open space or municipal streets. Grittman noted that detached town homes are becoming more popular, however staff is concerned about the public or front face of the buildings. The appeal of this concept is to provide common space or street exposure to the front face, which results in a unique neighborhood. However, many units do not have the benefit of common space. Grittman indicated that in discussing concern over lack of common area exposure, an alternative plan had been developed. Commission received the sketch in their staff report. The plan relies on a similar layout, but mixes attached and detached units in order to achieve density while maximizing green space and widening area bctween homes. The plan also re-orients the green spaces so that more units have exposure to the common area. Grittman indicated that in providing the sketch plan, the intent is not to propose that this be the approved concept, but to illustrate alternatives. Grittman stated that a concept review's purpose is to provide feedback on where there are issues and opportunities. Staff has no spccific rccommcndation; they are awaiting comments of the Commission, applicant and public. . O'Ncill informed Commission that members of the City staff had visited the developcr's Brooklyn Park site, which is based on the same neighborhood concept. StafI was impressed with the appeal and liveability of the site. 0 'Neill stated that issues identified during that visit were addrcssed in stairs comments. Chair Frie opcned thc public hearing. Tom Rollings, 4550 Westin Lane North, Plymouth, addressed the Commission rcpresenting UP Development. Rollings stated that he had come to Monticello looking for a site that would work well for the neighborhood concept. I Ie and Southwind Builders, site contractor, have similar developments in Maplewood, Anoka and Brooklyn Park. Rollings commented on the alternative skctch plan provided by staff, explaining that the meandering storm water pond suggested takes away from thc green court concept, which crcates more of a community feel through thc use of sidewalks. Rollings also commented that the style and design of the units move them away from the barracks look of many townhomc developments to more of a single-family style. frie inquired about development stagc requirements that would depend on the outcome of the concept approval. Grittman stated that pending an approval, the developers would engincer the site and provide more information on thc buildings themselves. . fric asked if the units would be patio homes. Rollings statcd that they are instead small two-story, Victorian homes. Some will havc a basement option. Frie asked if a homeowner's association would bc established. Rollings indicated there would be an association. Frie inquired about unit price range for the units. Rollings indicatcd they - IS - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 would be between $185,000 - $210,000. Rollings stated that twinhomes are not the direction they would like to go with the design. Patty Pratt, 514 Elm Street, addressed the Commission. Pratt commented that there are already issues with tratlic on Elm Street, specifically at the corner of 6th and Elm. Pratt stated that many drivers do not stop at the stop sign. Increascd traffic could make the problcm worse, in her opinion. Frie stated that at development stage, Commission would discuss traHic and circulation; she should come back and address the Commission at that point. O'Neill stated that the City is looking at putting ih Street through, taking some traffic off 6th Street. Additionally, 6 Y2 Street would be completed with this project. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Jlilgart asked if they would be doubling the allowable density for this area. Grittman stated that it would actually be possible to create more density with an allowed R-3 development. . Dragsten stated the units looked nice and would fit in well. However, he is concerned about parking. Dragsten stated that he felt there should be convenient guest parking and that driveways should allow for at least 1 car to park. Rollings stated that driveways are discouraged in this neighborhood concept. The fronts are intended to be the focus with cars parked inside. Rollings noted that no guest parking is more than 150 feet from units. Dragsten clarified that visitors and even residents will want the closest parking sport. He expressed concern that they would park on curbs, grass, etc. Rollings stated that a viable association will be formed and will enforce parking restrictions. O'Neill indicated that the site is designed so that residents park inside. However, public parking close enough to the front door of units is a concern. Frie asked O'Neill if there appeared to be any parking prcssures on the site staff visited. O'Neill indicated that it did not appear as if there were significant problems and staff did not have to walk far from the visitor parking area. Posusta agreed that there should be more parking, perhaps utilizing the green space to attain that space. O'Neill stated that public streets will also be overflow parking. Frie stated that based on the dialogue, he would seek to table as there are enough concerns to warrant arc-design. Frie requested that the applicant re-design the concept plan to incorporate the comments provided and re-submit. MOTION BY SPARTZ TO TABLE 'fIlE REQUEST SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PROJECT REDESIGN. . MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -l()- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 13. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinancc regarding: a. Topographic survey requirements b. Tree survey rcquiremcnts e. final plat submission requirements d. Park dedication requirements Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT '1'0 STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Frie clarified that the item would be heard in August. 14. Comprehensive Plan Update O'Neill provided an update on the contested case annexation process, stating that the City and township had reached an agreement establishing an orderly annexation area. The agreement was well balanced for all parties and addressed thc concerns of propcrty owners. O'Neill explained that under the basic terms of the agreement, fi)r the most part, properties can only comc in based on request by the property owner. Land remains agricultural until development and infrastructure can bc planned for. The terms of the agreement allow the City to plan for growth. The new orderly annexation area's outer boundary is what had been identified a few years ago as a planning area based on capacity of the current waste water treatment facility and allows for expansion outsidc of that area once the area within that boundary is 75% dcveloped. O'Neill stated that staff would be going before the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation of how this land should bc used. Thcre is now an opportunity to look at detailed zoning in this area rather than long range guide plans. Some goals for this area may include more green space requiremcnts and expansions of park and pathway planning. O'Ncill stated that there has been a significant amount of pressure for information on how development wi II proceed within those areas. O'Neill concludcd that thcre is now an opportunity for Council to authorizc the Planning Commission to move forward on planning for the orderly annexation area. Frie asked if the comprehensive plan would need to be amended. O'Neill stated that parts of the plan may nced to be updated and provide morc detail. - 17 - Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Frie asked if the intent of the planning effort to allow the various City commissions and committees to have an open forum for direction. O'Neill stated it would be more akin to a public forum, allowing for citizen input. Frie asked if copies of the agreement and planning process for the area would be included in the next packet. O'Neill stated that he would hope to have a plan and schedule by the next meeting, however staff would like to complete a thorough job even with the speed of development. 15. Adjourn. MOTION BY DRAGTSEN TO ADJOURN AT 9:30 PM MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ange ' Sc,' ann, Recorder -18-