Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-01-2001 . . . MIN UTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - May 1,2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Staff: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst .IerrO'Neill, Stevc Grittman and Lori Kraemer I . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 pm. 2. Approval of minutes of the re!!lllar mectin!.!: held April 3. 2001. .... ,) . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3. 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried with Robbie Smith abstaining. Consideration of addin!! items to the agenda. Robbie Smith asked for an update regarding parking situation at the Locust Street Shops, China Buffet. Agenda item 9. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a planned unit development concept plan for development of two. two-unit townhomes located at 510 West Broadway; and Consideration of a variance to the lot area per unit standard. Applicant: Rick Anderson Steve Grittman, City Planner, presented the statl report advising that Rick Anderson has submitted a PUD concept plan that includes the development of two, tW(Hll1it town homes. The subject property is located at the corner of Maplc Street and Broadway. Variance fi'OJ11 the lot area per unit requirement has been requested. The property is 19,3 16 square feet in size and contains a single family house that is planned to be demolished. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District. Two-unit townhomes are a permitted use in the R-2 District. The proposed land use is consistent with the zoning for the property. The front of the property is defined as the boundary abutting a public street right-or-way having the least width. By this definition, the Ihmt of the lot is the north side. which faces Broadway. Based on this definition, the front and rear setbacks are insufficient. Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01 . Based on the layout of the town homes, it makes more sense for the east side adjaccnt to Maple Street to be the front. Grittman listed the requircd and proposed setbacks based on the assumption that the City would grant flexibility in defining the front of the property with the PUD. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and exceeds the minimum lot width, the proposed buildings are compliant with the maximum building height and each unit contains 1,402 square feet of floor area. Two-family structures are required to have 6,000 square feet of lot area for each unit. The site is 19,316 square feet in size and is proposed to contain tour units, resulting in 4,829 square feet per unit. The City may wish to grant flexibility with the lot area per unit requirement as part of the PUD in exchange for a high-quality design that is appropriate fix the location. . Thc submitted project has many attractive fcatures and has the potential to meet a high standard appropriate for a PUD. Driveway access to the street is shared, reducing the amount of pavement along Maple Street from four driveways to two driveways, This creates more green space in the boulevard and increases the space available for boulevard trees. The design of the driveways and parking areas creates an almost square area of paving in front of the structures that lends itself well to being surrounded with trees and shrubs and creating a courtyard atmosphere. Bedrooms are located on the sccond 11001' above the garages. This tuck-under garage style presents an attractive architectural front to Maple Street and diminishes the visual impact of the garage doors. 'The entrances to the units arc located on the sides of the units. Therefore. the front door to the unit next to Broadway f~lCes Broadway, increasing the compatibility of the townhomes with the single family homes that front on Broadway, l'he ground floor plan illustrates a covered porch at the rear corner of each unit. This would also add to the architectural detail and variety of the side facing Broadway. The concept plan shows the general location of proposed trees on the propeliy, The locations are well distributed on all sides of the structures and create an attractivc setting for the homes. Adding some evergreen trees along thc wcst property line would provide some privacy for thc back yard spaces. Whcn a detailed landscape plan is submitted at the development stagc. the addition of shrubs would further enhance the structures and yards. Grading, drainagc, and utility plans will be required at the development stage and will be subject to City Engineer review and approval. .Ieff(YNeill added that thcre are many lots in the older part of town that could !()lIow this pattern, so this particular development could possibly set the standard for redevelopment in that area and therefore, careful planning needs to be done to ensure good amenities. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Anderson, applicant. was present. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. 2 . Planning COIlHnission Minutes - 05/01/0] Richard Carlson about minimum garage size standards in the City, and does that apply only to single family. Carlson stated the need to ensure these arc capable of housing 2 cars. Carlson noted that he felt, according to the site plan, this does not meet those standards. Definition of the front of the lot was discussed with (i-rittman stating the front would be the north, but becausc of the setbacks there would be a deficient and it would make more sense to make the East side the front as stated in the report. It was asked of the applicant if he could still have the same attractive design if the East side was switched to the front. Grittman stated it was discussed at staff level and assuming these lots would be subdivided and platted, there would be conflicts, but if the PUD is taken as a whole, Broadway would be defined as front stating that as part of a PU D you can take the liberty of defining setbacks. . It was stated by the applicant that these are intended to be owner/occupied and approximately $130,000 to $140,000 each. It was also stated that there has been no response from adjacent neighbors regarding this proposal. Dragtsen asked that since this is at concept stage, that there be architectural controls in writing stating this development would match the area. The members agreed the pun must be superior, stating the design is favorable, yet concerned about the fit in the existing neighborhood, making sure it does not stand out. Twin versus townhome square fCJotage was discussed with Grittman stating that by definition we would have to catagorize as twin home with the proposed 6,000 sq. ft per unit; but there is a 5,000 sq. ft. shortage in this case that several of the members were concerned with. Carson also added that he does not rcmember granting this size of a lot square footage variance for townhomes previously, most or all cascs havc met the square foot rcquirement and stating he feels we are looking at a lot that would accommodate three units which we arc trying to put on f(mr. Grittman states that one of the things that staff found interesting about this idea was that it is an urban development and fclt we would be likely to see more similar requests in the older neighborhoods. Staff thought that if we get a design that the City fecls is superior, there is a rationale l()[ considering this proposal. He also added that the City could stick to their density requirements but staff leels that perhaps this as a good use and that the project is a design that is superior to others that have been done. It was discussed that this could be combined into one building such as a duplex, but Grittman stated by breaking it up it characteristically appears to be more like a single family home which is more t~tting in this arca. From stafr's perspective, this is a more superior design, although the variance request is larger than most, and there is a discrcpancy in determining a twin home versus townhome . . Grittman again added that they arc working with the developer to design an entry way on Broadway to make it look more like it is the front, and added that they are proposing a wrap-around front porch to reinforce that front door look. Anderson stated his time frame 3 Planning Commission Minutes - OSlO 110 I . would be as soon as the process can be completed, and it also depends on him getting the financing. Popilek asked if any of the other members were concerned about the sholiage in the square footage and Carlson stated that the prcvailing attitude of a 20% deficit is acceptable, although it that is the case the Planning Commission should look at the current standards. O'Neill stated that is only with the trade off of getting additional improvements to the site SLlch as dressing it up, added green space, less paved surfaces, creating visual value to the site. Carlson also stated that if the Planning Commission approved this concept they would also be encouraging this type of design in other areas of the City, which would possibly be okay, and O'Neill stated this would need to be looked at carefully. Smith stated he is always in f~tvor of improving Broadway as it is the heart of Monticello and this concept would be an improvement. It was stated that stalf is not recommcnding changing the ordinance, this type of process gives the City a case by case process to review. Carlson noted that he would like to incorporate into the conditions that the side faeing Broadway be improved to look like it is the front. Herbst questioned if it may be a possibility to redevelop as one large unit, rather than 2 units. Chair Frie stated that assuming there is an attitude of the Planning Commission to approve this concept, these issues can be incorporated and worked out under Exhibit Z. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PUD CONCEPT' PLAN BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN, WITH CONDITIONS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WITH THE ADDITION OF ITEMS NUMBER 3 AND 4, ARE LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The devcloper submit a complete PUO development stagc application in accordance with Chapter 20. Section 20-4lB]5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the development stage application be submittcd within nine (9) months of the date of concept plan approval. The PU/) application shall include projcct design and landscaping features as described in the Planner's report. 2. Comments fronl othcr City staff 3. Revise thc sitc plan showing the Broadway Street side design to look like it is thc front sidc. . 4. Increase in garagc sizc. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Roy Popilek voting in opposition. 4 . . . Planning C0111111 ission Minutes - 05/01/01 6. Review request by Monticello School District to extend the conditional use permit allowing operation of the Alternative Learning Program in an 1-1 District. Jeff O'Neill adviscd that the City has allowed the operation of the Alternative Learning Program as an interim use in the 1-1 district by conditional use permit. During the previous review cycle, the School District was granted an extension to the CUP permit. As part of the discussion, it was noted that the School District should seek an alternative sitc. Due to difficulty in finding a suitable location, the School District is sceking an extension. Mike Benedetto, Superintendent of Monticello Schools, and the staff from the ALP were in attendance. Benedetto advised that the school had spent a year looking at locations to no avail, advising that they are in their fourth year as a non-traditional school mainly educating "tough" kids. Some of the places looked at were store fronts and church basements. Gene Garman, representative for the ALP, addcd that they did have a location that they thought was a possibility but it did not work out. Again he stated the need for an off-site location stating that it has been statistically proven that the average "non- traditional" student does not progress when connected to a school. They have already failed at a high school setting, school grounds are not the most appropriate. Garman again described the types of students they educate and noted that they have managed to give diplomas to 123 students so far that would not otherwise have graduated, and if the school can't find a place to locate, they would not exist. Chair Frie stated that the commission is totally supportive of the ALP staff and the program, and that the issue is strictly the location based on the present ordinance. Frie added that the Planning Commission's intent is to work with the school as long as we can work within compliance of the ordinances and he feels that Administration has truly done their homework at attempting to find a location. It was emphasized that the location they are in now fits their needs and it looks as though the attempts to find another location have been made. Benedetto explained how the school is funded and stated that the school is sclf- supporting, salaries are determined by the number of students who attend advising that this does not come out of any type of fund. He stated that if there were no students, the school would not exist. Benedetto advised also that the school is currently paying a very reduced rent, adding that the owners contribute to the building as well but that they are leery in adding amenities if the ALP would not be allowcd to operate there any further. It was also stated that the size of the current bui Iding is sufficicnt at this time and that no other buildings that they have looked into have come in anywhere near that in size. Also stated that by State law the ALP cannot pay f()r a building they are using, they have to levy for it and they are trying to kecp the cost down as low as possible. Garman advised that there are Monticello students who chose to attend the ALe in Buffalo, advising that Monticello ALP has a substance abuse policy and because of this policy, some students choose Buffalo instead. Benedetto and Garman advised that they Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01 . have a ditTerent mission than the ALC in Buffalo. Oragsten again stated he feels there is a safety issue as this is located on a fairly busy road, another site would be better. He askcd if the school had looked at other cities, taking the Monticello ALP to possibly Big Lake. It was advised that it would not be a good message to send to the City of Monticello residents by sending their kids out of the City, stating these are our kids and we would like them to stay in Monticello. Lynn Haldy, staff member at the ALP, advised that it is their intent to keep programs that exist within thc community. Part of their work is community outreach and they want to involve the students in the community. Herbst agreed that since this program was started here, it should keep the Monticello students here. It was noted that they do have open enrollment and they may have one or two students out of the district. There is a waiting list for Monticello students, advising that they did take students on a limited basis from other towns previously. Garman also advised that they do charge ditTerent fecs tl1l' out of town students. . Carlson and Smith agree that the City has been supportive and their concern is that the school is operating in an 1-1 district. Carlson added that his only concern is that we are taking a piece of industrial land away to use as institutional. He does not believe this is the best site for the ALP, adding that it is probably a community problem and that we need to come up with a site. lIe stated he is still opposed to this as a permanent site, but not a temporary site, until we come up with something better. Smith also added that there have been no complaints in the f()ur years that the school has been operating at this site, it is serving it's purpose with no problems. lIe also noted that there has been no one in attendance at any public hearing that was opposed to or had concerns regarding the school being located at this site. The members discussed the options of other locations, concurring that trying to locate the school in the downtown area would cause problems and then the City would start to hear complaints. Smith felt that if a complaint comes up in the future, that is the time the City would need to look at this again, otherwise give them a break and look at this every other year. Herbst added that he agreed with extending the school's permit, but he also did not necessarily feel that the school had looked at as many alternate locations as they could have. I Ic also addcd that locating in an appropriately zoned district is important. Frie stated his recommendation to the Planning Commission is that the school go ahead with the application and public hearing, granting an interim use permit for two years, then have the school come back at that time. . O'Neill stated that formal action on this item was not requested at this time. A formal application and associated public hearing will be needed in conjunction with extending the permit. 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes.. 05/01/01 7. Consideration of a sketch plan review for development of 60 single t~lmily lots and 76 townhouse units on two parcels located southeast of N.E. Jacob A venue (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue N.t:. submitted by applicant Maplewood Development & Construction, Inc. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the statlreport. He stated that the concept plan consists of two parcels within the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA); One 17.3 acre parcel is immediately southeast of the Jacob (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue intersection, while the second 25.1 acre parcel is located approximately 500 feet south of the intersection along Fenning Avenue. While the parcels are not contiguous, they are being eonsidered together as part of this PU D concept for the purpose of balancing density across the project. The OAA Land Use Plan guides these parcels f()r future development of low density residential land uses. Evaluating the separate elements collectively, the overall project density is approximately 3.2 units per acre, which would be considered low density. Collectively, both parcels meet the 12,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit requirements for the R-2, Single and Two Family District, with approximately 13,580 square feet per unit. Evaluating the parcels collectively allows for the development of the townhouse uses on the parcel directly adjacent to the Jacob/Fenning intersection. This more compact land use type may be appropriate at this location given the traffic impact of these two major roadways and the isolated character of this parcel. The parcel is somewhat isolated from other surrounding residential uses by existing or planned park facilities and steep topography to the south and east, which prevent through street connections between neighborhoods. Townhouse Site Design. The townhouse parcel is proposed to have two accesses, one to Jacob Avenue (CSAIIIS) and one to Fenning Avenue. The proposed access to Jacob Avenue (CSAII 18) will require review by Wright County. The proposed access to Fenning Avenue is 550 feet south of the Jacob Avenue intersection and 350 feet from the south property line. The City Engineer should review if this is adequate intersection spacing on fenning Avenue, as well as alignment with streets accessing CardinallliIls Sixth Addition to the west. Internally, the townhouse project is served by a through private street. crhis street has a 60 foot right-of-way. The City requires a minimum 24 foot street section measured back of curb to back of curb within townhouse projects. The City recently approved a similar development that provided 30 foot street sections. This street section design would be appropriate here given the through street function f()r all of the units. For the private streets extending off of the main throughway, a 24 foot section should be provided with concrete curb on all surfaces except for the asphalt pads leading to each garage. I Jammer heads also need to be provided at the terminus of these streets to allow for emergency 7 Planning COllllll ission Minutes - 05/01/0 I . vchicles and garbage haulers to turnaround. Due to the narrow width of the proposed streets and driveways, some accommodation should be made for guest parking. Thc area in front of each garage would providc room for one or two cars (depending on driveway width). Additional guest parking at a ratio of one-half stall per unit should also be provided. Setbacks within thc project are 30 fcct from any public right-of-way. A 30 foot setback should also be provided at the east and south property lines. One building encroaches slightly into this area along thc south property line. Thc buildings should also be setback a minimum 25 feet from the private streets extcnding off of the internal public street to ensure adequate access and visibility if there arc vehicles parked in thc driveways. Most of the buildings are only setback 20 feet from thc private streets. No information has been provided at this time regarding building design or landscaping. Thc developer will need to provided detailed building elevations and a landscapc plan addressing perimeter, common area and foundation plantings with a forthcoming development stage application. . Single Family Site Design. The single family portion of the project has been designed in consideration of the R-2, Single and Two Family District performance standards. The layout of the subdivision and lots re.f1ects a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size with 80 foot minimum lot width. Absent any topography or wetland information, all of the lots appear to have adequate buildable area within required setbacks. The City may want to require submission of specific house plans for Lots 10, 25 and 28 showing construction ofa single family dwelling with the ability to provide a three car garage and attached deck or porch based upon the encumbrance of the lots by the gas pipeline easement to avoid future variance requests. It should also be noted that the gas pipeline company has indicated that they may restrict the construction of fences across their easement. For this reason, consideration should possibly be given to designing the lots such that the easement is across front yards rather than rear yards where fenccd yards may be desired. . The single l~lmily element of the concept plan has access to Fenning Avenue. This access is centered on the parcel's west boundary. Again, the City Engineer should review the proposed access location relative to spacing on Fenning and alignment with potential future street extensions to the west. Secondary access is provided via a connection to Wildwood Road within Wildwood Ridge to the cast. The concept plan should also provide for a future street extension to the south, which is planned f()r future low density residential use, to improve access and neighborhood connectivity. The devclopcr should also provide a sketch plan for future resuhdivision of the tower and exception parcel northeast of the single family lots, including street layout and lot dcsigns. Better to have a winding, curving drive rather than angled turns. No access points have been reviewed 8 Planning COInmissiol1 Minutes - 05/01/01 . at this time. The design of the right-of-way and street section within this neighborhood should match those in the adjacent Wildwood Development and as may be recommended by the City Engineer based on traHic generation. The streets within the single family area include five eyebrows or shallow cul-de-sacs with islands. The design of these eyebrows would require further review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate emergency and garbage hauler access. From a public works standpoint, these eyebrows create additional maintenance and snow plowing issues. Consideration should be given to minimizing the use of such eyebrows or eliminating them all together. 'fhe developer should document that the towers on the parcel to the north do not threaten single family lots in the new subdivision. . The proposed street system in this project requires several turns from the northeast corner where it connects with Wildwood Ridge, and the access point to Fenning A venue. Wildwood Ridge was intended to serve as an internal minor "collector" street tor the area, facilitating neighborhood traffic from both subdivisions between Fcnning A venue and county Highway 18. Staff rccommcnds a more direct connection, with sweeping curves rather than abrupt turns as designed. One suggestion would change the Fenning A venue access point to a location farther south, eliminating at least one of the "eyebrow"shown on the concept plan. Park and Trail Dedication. Chaptcr 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance rcquires dedication of 10 percent of the gross arca of the plat tor development of parks and open space or payment of an equivalent amount of cash in lieu of land, subject to revicw and approval by the Park Commission and City Council. Based upon the gross area of the plat, approximately 4.2 acres of land is required to bc dedicated tor public parks. The concept plan includes a proposed 1.3 acre park within the center of the singlef~unily neighborhood. This parcel is encumbered by the gas pipeline eascment, which may restrict development and use of a neighborhood park. The largest contiguous area not etTected by the easement is 0.6 acres in size in the southeast corncr of the proposed park. There is also a 0.1 acre area not effected by the casement in the northwest corncr ofthc parcel. Provisions for trails along Jacob and/or Fcnning Avenue should also be considered. Chair Frie was conccrncd that the homes tit in with thc more exclusive homes just up thc way into Wildwood Ridgc. I-Ie stated the applicant was aware of the City' desirc to have single family homes in that arca. . The concept for the townhouse clement of the project includes paths leading to the pond at the northwest corner of that parcel. Similar pathways, whether public or private should also bc providcd to the east and south property lines to provide pedestrian connections to thc planned park areas. One such pathway should be considered which accommodatcs 9 Planning Co III III ission Minutes - 05/01/01 . bike/pedestrian traffic through the City's park area, extending through the tower property to the single fami ly project. This pathway ultimately would be intended to connect the townhouse area, the single family area, the City's park and Water Tower park site, and provide access to the school campus to the northwest. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. No grading, drainage and utility plans were provided as part of this concept plan review. Some indication of storm water pondi ng is illustrated for the townhouse parcel, but no such information is shown for the single family units. Consideration of a development stage application will require submission of grading, drainage and utility plans, which are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Frie stated his concern with recommending park space versus dollars as there is nothing out there fiJr future park space, noting that starting from Wildwood Ridge to Rolling Woods there really arc no pathways. .Jeff O'Neill stated that there is about a 5 acre parcel by the water tower site that is designated for park land, adding there are also approximately 4 more acres available for parkland as well. Popilek asked if the developer could take two parcels and connect thcm as a PUD and it was stated that there has to be some unified concept and that the City would need to work with the developer for that connection. . Oragsten added concerns such as the entrance/exits on Fenning which seem close to the corners, and was this an issue with the County. The commissioners and staff also discussed access, road grades, and adjacent land being developable. One of the reasons thc developer stated for proposing this concept is that there are some radical topographical changes in going from north to south noting that the sites are radically steep. The developer also stated they wcre not opposed to the itcms listed in the conditions in Exhibit Z; but they did comment that they are trying to create some added value, amenities, in regard to the "eyebrow" areas. They prefer to keep the parks private and let the association take care of them, but would still make cash dedications for park land. . The developer responded to the suggcstions made to them in the staff report as well as at the meeting. Mario CocchiareIla, President of Maplewood Development, stated that parking per unit hasis on twin homes is different from town homes (proposing 18 additional ofT site); these are full size garages and they don't think that additional guest parking should be required due to that. The main thoroughfare would be puhlic, off streets would he pri vate, and regarding item 5 of the conditions in the staff report with set backs of 30 feet, its 25 feet in private streets and they would prefer 20 ft. because they would like to put in trails and plantings. He also stated that 80% of the homes do not back up to each other creating additional privacy. Also regarding the 24 ft. wide street, they are hoping to make them 20 ft. wide, making the overall site creating courtyard areas. Moving the access to the south is okay, would also like to see a trail extend 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 05/0]/01 . through this in the future. Frie asked that if the Wright County Engineer did not approve access on .Jacob Ave., do they have another option, and it was stated that should not be a problem. 'fhey also added that the Engineer had advised them they need some additional storm water ponding as well. Herbst questioned the number of town homes that are being proposed in the City at this time and would like to know some ratios, asking what would be a healthy ratio? Frie asked for statTto bring that count up to date, including the Klucas property; O'Neill asked how would we catagorize it versus values and what why would they like to see the break down? Carlson stated possibly up to $150 value and above. Maplewood Development has not identified a value at this time. Popilck also addcd that the Planning Commission is constantly asked to approve PUDs, making roads smaller, etc. and states that somehow we need to watch that we do not make these too small. Also asked about garbage pickup in thc townhome sections, and it was statcd they would be separate groups and arc widc cnough to accomodate. . The commissioners stated they liked the concept of more green spaccs vcrsus trying to get too many units in and having very little green space. Herbst noted this is a vcry accessible (or viewable) site, and it was stated that the city does have architectural dcsign standards to be followed, but also have the t1exibility with a PUD. There was furthcr discussion rcgarding that the main thoroughfare is a public road, others are private, and Grittman stated that the concerns with snow removal, firc acccss, and other services would be discussed with Public Works and the City Enginccr. llerbst rccommendcd to stafTthat they provide information regarding twin homes and town homcs in rcgard to ratios, etc., within thc ncxt two months. . O'Ncill adviscd that thc ncxt stcp could bc to go to the City Council with the sketch plan or the applicant could prepare a preliminary plat, reviewed by Planning Commission, forwarded onto the MOAA Board and then a public hearing proccss. lie also statcd that the city needs a complctc application before going further on this itcm. lie also stated that thcrc are some sewer capacity issucs that Maplewood Development is working on with the City Engineer, and there is a chancc thcrc may be problems. Herbst asked about who would get the capacity first as there is also another prcliminary plat submitted on this same property. O'Neill stated there are no set standards as to who would develop this property if that is the question; the question may be which areas would be served by city services. Frie added that when he was on the MOAA board, thc thinking was based on thc critcria for bcing annexcd, common sense being the area which abuttcd thc sewer/water access would get the service. It was also asked which parcel was contiguous and O'Ncill statcd both sitcs wcrc contiguous, but the waste water trcatmcnt plant projcct would have better access, however they have other factors to look at. 11 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01 A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE SKETCH PLAN FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 10 STATING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SI'ANDARD REVIEW BY STAFF. SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Review of the Mielke commercial PU D sign system. Jeff O'Neill provided the planning commissioners with a modified sign system provided by Dan Mielke. The subway sign height would stay at 30 ft., but location would move slightly; landscaping modifications were made that would remove the over~story trees and replace with flower pots and Christmas trees in the winter with lights; remove one pylon sign but there would be two pylon signs along the Hwy. 25 corridor and would bc 30 ft. in height to match the one at the Ford dealership (it was stated they this sign was grandfathered in); but Mielke also added that the Ford reader board is 40 ft. in height; there would be a 9' x 8' monument sign in place of a pylon, a smaller directional sign on Cedar St. that would meet the minimums, another monument sign on Cedar St. as well. The pylon sign in the back is proposed at 57' high with comments by Mielke stating that they would like to match the Ford Dealership (electronic) sign and that the sign would be blinking as an attention getting design. The Ford sign again was discussed and again it was stated this is an enforccment issue and that Ford did not follow the city's ordinance whcn installing thc reader board. Mielke advised that the planning commission's minutes from a year ago stated that Ford had three new signs and one cxisting sign, which is inconsistent with what is being stated tonight. Grittman added that thcre are a couple of monument signs jnstead of pylons, and they generally encourage the use of monuments but therc is a concern with one on Ccdar S1. and the traffic visibility stating he would like to know the exact placemcnt of this sign. Dan Miclke provided the commissioners with a listing of thc signs. The freeway sign behind the proposed restaurant was dropped by 3 n. because the same company that put up the Amoco, Super America and Best Western signs would be thc same and they were all 57' in height. O'Neill and Grittman advised that freeway access sign height is 32' along the interstate from the road surface and that the other 57' signs stated werc put in prior to this ordinance. Stall stated the various sign hcights and whether they were placed prior to the '97 storm and/or new ordinance. StaIr noted that Dunlo Motors has a sign that is 29', even with the freeway, and that it was installed according to the code without discussions by the applicant, adding that Dunlo Motors was required to fl1110w code. Frie asked staff which part of the signage being proposed by Mielke is of concern and Grittman stated in summary the 57' sign should be 32', the 30' sign should be 22', and stated that the monuments are in compliance. O'Neill stated that the 30' signs previous stated were in place prior to the ordinance and the city has not allowed any new signs that are not in compliance, naming Dunlo Motors, K-Mart, Cub Foods, Country Grill, 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/0 I . Americ-Inn, etc. all met code and the city has held to the code. Grittman also added that all the above-named signs have met code, some with concerns who wanted more sign height and/or size, but no variances were approved, stating all are in compliance. Herbst stated he felt that as long as this is a PUD, the city can allow any size they want, but Grittman stated the need to have findings as to why this would be allowed and are not as inflexible as a variance. The commissioners discussed further that they did not feel the city needed to put in more larger signs adding that there are freeway signs installed by the Transportation Dept. as well that arc used for advertisement, and the commissioners wondered the effects of such signs. Frie stated signage issue has been a concern since day one with this project and asked staff why the 22' sign height was determined. O'Neill advised that sign heights were set by speeds on the roadways. Frie stated that he does not see having all 30' signs along Highway 25 to be a problem, hut did not feel that having some signs at 30' and the rest at 22' was the answer. O'Neill advised that the reasoning for this is that once redevelopment occurs, it is the thought that they would all he in compliance with the 22' sign height. . O'Neill added that they need to look at how they want their city to look in the future, adding that we have a CCD in the old part of town, then to the south is newer, may want to look at signs at that point. Mielke stated that they are in jeopardy of losing some clients if the sign issues are not resolved. He stated some of the cl ients coming in need certain signage, and that aesthetics are important. What they are proposing is what seems to fit with what is already there and would be effective, also adding that they made modifications since the last planning commission meeting. He feels the freeway pylon would fit with what is there, and that having a 30' sign would be odd with the existing one that is 57'. Mielke also stated that the national chain they are looking at for this site would not approve of this. Mielke also pointed out the aesthetics with putting in the monuments versus the higher signs. Also added there will be trees planted all around this site, and that it is more expensive for them to do this signage proposal, hut aesthetically it is hettcr. Stated need signs that are effective. . It was notcd that the issue is with the proposed 57' sign as well as the other one proposed that would place several signs on one post. Mielke stated he is hoping to get approval of this signage program based on its merits, it is a PUD, and also addressed the proposed building signs noting that due to the changes in access to the development, all customers will come in the back off Cedar St. and therefore are requesting that when those people come in from the back that they have the same signage on back as on the front side. Grittman and O'Neill stated that the wall signs are not an issue. 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/0 I . O'Neill again advised that the presence of a non-conforming sign (Ford reader-board) in the area should not be used as a reason to allow a higher/bigger sign at a neighboring site. 1 Ie did ask Mielke wherc the electronic reader board would be install cd if at all, and Mielke stated it would go where the existing lJltraLube sign is, replacing it. Mielke still feels they arc undersigned compared to what is across th street from them. They want this approval based on the merits ofthcir proposal. O'Neill stated that there is not anything uniquc about this travel ccnter which would allow larger signs, and Grittman added that non-conforming signs is not a good reason to allow these larger signs, stating that they arc trying to get rid of the non-comforming signs and by approving this plan, it is defeating the purpose. Mielke states what makes his project unique is the signage around them. O'Neill stated he agrecd with Mielke on the issue of the pylons that arc exposed to Hwy. 25, but again Orittman stated that if the planning commission feels the 30' sign height is appropriate on Hwy. 25, the code needs to be changed. Richard Carlson asked if these were 7 individual businesses, how many signs would be allowed and Grittman stated for 7 individual lots therc would be 7 signs allowed. . The commissioners concurred that added building signage for the back of the building was acceptable; Ford is a separate issue that needs to be looked into by staff; sign height on Highway 25 should be looked at if stall feels that 30' versus 22' is more acceptable, but Popilek, Oragsten and Smith did not feel 57' should be allowed; Oragsten added that if several businesses could be listed on one sign it may make the project look better stating aesthetically it looks better than 7 individuals; Carlson added that Mielke needs to pull the electronic sign as well as the center sign from the proposal; Smith stated he feels the sign project nceds to be uniform with what is there but also that by allowing a larger sign in this proposal the city could be opening itself up for more requests for larger signs; Herbst did not feel that the other businesses who are in conformance will come in to complain if this sign proposal is approved, but also added that whatever the planning commission recommends he would be in support of. . O'Neill asked if the code would need to be changed for the 57' sign height, and Grittman advised that there would have to be some rationale for this and that it can not be because of the other signs that are in place as they are non-conforming. llerbst asked if the rationale could be that the other signs there are 57', and if you can't put in a 57' sign there, does it drop down to 32' and if so, would that be visible? It was stated it would not be visible, but if that is the purpose you buy freeway land. O'Neill also asked Mielke if there was a height somewhere between 57' and 32'; and also for Mielke to justify this request so as to not set a precedence. Mielke stated they came up with 57' because some of the national food outlets came out and looked around and were attracted by this being a growing town, but not on the population we have, therefore the need to attract from freeway. Mielke stated the sign company they worked with came up with this height and that they also indicated how the sign needs to be turned to an appropriate angle for visibility. 14 . . . 9. Planning Conllnission Minutes - 05/0]/0] A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICI lARD CARLSON TO APPROVE TI IE MIELKE COMMERCIAL PUD SIGN PLAN AS PRESENTED. APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDING THAT TilE TOTAL SIGN PACKAGE FOR TilE AREA UNDER THE PUD IS SUPERIOR THAN THE POTENTIAL SUM OF SIGNS HAD EACH PARCEL DEVELOPED INDIVIDUAL SIGNAGE. THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ROY POPILEK AND ROD DRAGSTEN NOTING THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE 57' SIGN HEIGHT. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 3 to 2 with Rod Dragsten and Roy Popilek voting in opposition. AFTER FURTI IER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC IIEARINCi- TO RE-EXAMINE SIGN ORDINANCE AFFECTING SIGNAGE ALONG THE HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR. Motion carried 3 to 2 with Rod Dragsten and Roy Popilek voting in opposition. O'Neill advised Mielke that this item will be forward to the city council on 5/14/01 and they will get the planning commission's recommendation with their rationale, but this will not be on the consent agenda due to thc two opposing votes. (),Ncill also advised that the council needs a 3 to 2 vote for approval. The PUD will then be ready to proceed, with the development agreement to be worked out. Parking at China Buffet, Locust Street Jeff O'Neill advised that staff had reviewed the parking prior to a restaurant locating there, they then required the developer to provide funds for parking. O'Neill also stated that they knew there would be parking on the street and according to the CCO guidelines, the city should allow parking on the strccts. This is consistent with thc downtown district. If it had not been for thc wide street and being in thc ccntral community district. we would not have this restaurant there at all. O'Neill stated that the city is getting a greater tax base with this development and it does follow thc code. One problem with the site is the way it is configured as far as traffic flow, and people have a hard time understanding that they can park on the street and that the city actually encourages it. Herbst added that he understands that this project was approved prior to the restaurant going in, noting that the one that might be hurt by thc parking would be the rcstaurant and no one elsc. 10. Adiournmcnt A MOTION WAS MADE I3Y ROBRIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK ~;+=E)NG AT 10 PM. Motion carried unanimously. 15