Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-05-2001 . . . MINlJTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - June 5, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Roy Popilek arrived at 7:50 pm Staff: Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Jeff O'Neill arrived at 9 pm 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 pm. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 1, 2001 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TI IE MA Y 1,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried. " -, . Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Richard Carlson asked for an update regarding the business at 530 W. Broadway, if time allows. Chair frie noted concern from the Mayor and City Council regarding research of the city's sign ordinance and it was noted that this was not placed on the agenda due to the length of this agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Ilearinc: - Consideration of an interim use permit allowing a school to operate in the 1-1 district. Applicant: Indenendent School District 882, Alternative Learning Program. Fred Patch, Building 01'ficial, provided the stafTreport stating the applicant is seeking a two year extension of their permit. As was noted at the previous meeting, the School District has made an ctTort to find a suitable location in another district. Patch advised that technically, this type ofland use is only allowed in the Residential or PS (Puhlic Semi-public) zoning districts which limits the ability o1'the School District to find another location. - I ~ Planning COlnmission Minutes - 06/05/01 . It was also noted again that city staff has not received any complaints regarding the operation of the facility in an Industrial area. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Gene Garman, representativc for the ALP, again advised the Planning Commission that they havc looked into alternative spots for the school to no avail, and therefore they are seeking an extension. Again he stated that if they are not allowed this intcrim permit, thcy would be unable to operatc any further. Chair Fric closed the public hcaring. . Robbie Smith advised that therc was no one in attendance who was against this application. Clint Herhst asked staffs reasoning for condition 3 listed in the stafTrcport regarding use of the propcrty during normal school hours only. Grittman statcd that possibly it was due to thc fact that this is an interim use and staff may not want this bui Iding being occupied in the evcnings or on weekcnds due to thc location heing in the Industrial zoned area. Garman did state thcy occasionally have evening meetings for parents and that they do havc a summer school program as well. Chair Fric asked if the school would be comfortable in coming back to the Planning Commission if they find they need extcnded hours and Garman stated that was acceptable. Chair Fric also addcd that he would like the Planning Commission to revicw this itcm after one ycar for an update to if there are any comments rcgarding the school's scarch for a new location. It was clarificd that this would not require a public hearing but would be an update only. This was also acceptahlc to the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF SAID INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A PERIOD Of TWO YEARS BASED ON THE FINDING TIIA T CONFLICTS BETWEEN SCHOOL AND INDUSTRIAL USES l-lA VE BEEN KEPT TO A MINIMUM AT THIS LOCATION, AND BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING TIIAT THE SCIlOOL DISTRICT WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK AN ALTERNATIVE SITE DURING THE TERM OF nns EXTENSION TO THE ORIGINAL INTERIM USE PERMIT". THE fOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE INTERIM l.JSE PERMIT: 1. The interim usc pennit will expire on August 31,2003. Extension of the subject property for public schoolusc beyond the tcrmination datc may only be allm'Jcd by re-application to the City. 2. The District agrecs to cxpand thc parking area at thc dircction of the City. The City will direct cxpanded parking based on its observation of parking demand which may cause thc usc of on-strcet parking at any time. . 3. The use of the subject propcrty will bc during normal school hours only. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of a request for prel iminary plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Center yh Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (.TO) Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the stalTreport regarding the application for a preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 51h Addition. The Fifth Addition consists of3 parcels located along Fenning Avenue. Lot 3 will become the site of Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc., which is proposed for construction this year. Each of the parcels meet lot minimum requirements and all are located in the 11 zoning district. No public improvements are required with this development. Grittman added that this is a relatively simple application which the staff is recommending approval of. Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Charlic Pfeffer, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., was present. Ilearing no response, thc public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 5TH ADDIT'ION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a requcst for a variancc to the sidcyard setback requirements to allow construction of a new drivewav. Applicant. Jim Herbst. It was noted that Richard Carlson, Planning Commission member, abstaincd from this item stati ng a cont1ict of interest. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staffreport stating that the properties located at 519 and 531 West Broadway shared a driveway for several decades. Last year the property located at 531 West Broadway was sold and both the property owner of 53 I and Mr. Jim Ilerbst, the property owncr of 5 I 9 West Broadway, decided to discontinuc the sharing of the driveway. The shared driveway was an existing non-conforming use in that residential driveways are required to be setback at least 3 feet from sideyard property lines. That portion of the shared dri veway locatcd on the 531 siele of the property linc will remain as is without cxpansion or intensi fication of the non-conforming use. However. Mr. I [erbst intends to widen and pave that portion of the shared driveway that will remain on the 519 side of the property line. Wielening and paving of the driveway on the 519 side of the property line is an expansion and intensification o1'the non-conforming use and is not allowed without providing for the required 3 fClot sidcyard setback. -3- Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/0 I . Mr. Herbst is seeking a variance to allow a two (2) foot reduction in the width ofthe sideyard setback for his driveway as he would like to preserve the two large maple trees on the driveway side of his house. By reducing the sideyard setback for his driveway to one fl)ot, Mr. Herbst will be able to install a paved driveway nine feet in width, one foot away from the trees and one foot from the property line. It was stated that Herbst can only pave if he removed a tree. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Richard Carlson, property owner of 531 W. Broadway, provided pictures of the property as well as some information regarding an easement which was obtained previously. Carlson stated that he is looking for a clarification, as well as a contradictory statement on this agenda, where it stated that both parties decided on the discontinuing of the driveway. He did not decide to discontinue the shared driveway. Carlson stated both parties did sign an agreement that in the event of a 30 day written notice, a fence could be erected, but that this has nothing to do with the driveway. Carlson also asked Patch for clarification regarding green space noting that he had spoken to Patch previously regarding a new driveway and Patch stated that he would have to meet the 5 ft setback requirement for driveways. Carlson also listed his reasons for his desire to maintain the 5 foot green space stating that this would maintain the aesthetics along Broadway, adding that this may give publ ic perception that if the variance is allowed and if there is a minimum of a 1ft variance allowed, you are not going to have a green space. It was noted that lIerbst would like to put in a 20 ft driveway with a split rail fence running down the center of it. Carlson also added that he did not believe that 5 feet of green space . . IS exceSSIve. It was also noted that there had been some pine trees removed already. Carlson stated that if the setback is adhered to, there would be ample room to the cast between the house and driveway, more so than on the west. Carlson's recommendation would be to pursue continued joint use of the driveway as he feels that it has served both property owners for well over 60 years and cannot see why that can't continue. Carlson also added that he would be willing to accommodate a turn-around to serve both properties. Also, there is a grandt~lther situation which he consulted legally, and stated he was able to maintain his portion of the property along the properly line; just asking for at least the minimum of green space and if that cannot be met, that the property owner has an alternati ve to put the driveway on the other side of the trees to preserve the trees. It was noted that placing the driveway on either side would include the elimination of approx. ] 0 ft of curb cut. Carlson also noted that there are several shared driveway situations in Monticello and he felt that if this variance is allowed, then possibly those properties would put up a split rail fence down the middle of a driveway and does the city want to set that precedence. . -4- Planning Comm ission M inutes- 06/05/0 I . Jim Herhst, applicant and owner of 519 W. Broadway, advised that he has always wanted to have his own driveway and had intended to do so once the propcrty was sold by the original owners. He also statcd hc did not agrce with putting the driveway on the east sidc. Again he states that he wants a 2 ft variance to get away from the trees. He also advised that he has becn in touch with Carlson all along working with him to try to save them hoth money. Hc also advised that he was told by his attorney that he could indced put up a fencc where he is proposing. The public hearing was closed. It was clarified that the current shared driveway is on both properties. Dragsten asked if Herbst was to get his own driveway, would there be anything to prevent him from also putting up a fence and Herhst stated that it just simply states that who ever puts up the fence has to put it up on their own property. Carlson added that the property lines do not run perpcndicular to Broadway so thcre is a situation where Herbst has less propeliy at the front than at the rear, and vice versa with Carlson's property. Dragsten also asked Herbst why he did not want to put the driveway next to his house and Herhst stated that there is a sidewalk there currently. It was advised that the distance between l-lerbst' house and the property line was approx. 25 ft, with trees in between. Dragsten also asked if Herbst was planning to hard surface his driveway and if so, there would need to be 3 ft of green space, would have to be put ncxt to the house, and the driveway would then be 9 ft wide. . Smith asked Carlson ifhe was sure he would want the neighbors caT driving in and out right in front of the front porch and Carlson stated it was probably not ideal, but the driveway is there and has been for a very long time. Clint Herbst, Council Liaison, felt that possibly the planning commission was getting off track and the real issue is that there is a fence going up on the property line and can the applicant get a 2 ft variance. frie clarified that the application is indeed for the driveway, not the fence. Smith asked what the applicant felt was the problem with a shared driveway and Mr. Herbst explained that this has been an issue for many years hut that they had decided years ago that they would wait until the property was sold by their neighbor before putting in their own driveway. He stated he will not take out any trees, but will put in gravel ifhc has to if the variance is denied. . Chair Frie address both Herbst and Carlson advising that the main ingredient for providing a variance is finding a hardship and he cannot find a hardship in this case. Herbst did state that he was told by Patch that thc preserving of trees may be found a hardship in this case. Frie also pointed out that he saw three potential options, one being granting of a variance; second is to put in a lOft driveway with a straight shot to the garage with a turnaround; and the ]'d option is to expand to a 12 n driveway with a turnaround and leave the approach as it is. They then discussed the second option again and Herbst stated there is going to be a fence put up regardless of the outcome of the Ineeting. It was also noted that Carlson will have the same amount of space. Richard -5- . . . Planning COlnmission Minutes- 06/05/0 I clari fied that the fence would be in the driveway, not the grass area. Frie did question Patch as to justifying a hardship in this case and Patch stated there may not be a hardship, but preserving trees is in our code and that could be used as an argument. Grittman stated that in looking at a variance, the hardship is in putting the property to a reasonable use and if defining that as for the owners to have individual drives, would that be what the City intends. Also stated that if the City doesn't feel that separate driveways is a reasonable use, then what is the hardship. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The commissioners diseussed that having separate driveways may bc a dcsirable option, also that possibly moving the 1lerbst driveway cast of the trces would work, although Herbst did not like that option. It was statcd that the Carlson driveway would end up next to his house as well; they were in favor of preserving trees and grcen space, and perhaps the Hcrbst driveway would line up better with his garage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMrTH 'TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DRIVEW A YS AS NO HARDSHIP COULD BE DEMONS'fRATED. Motion carried with Roy Popilek abstaining due to his arriving after this item had been in diseussion and Richard Carlson abstaining duc to a conf1ict of interest. 8. Consideration for a variance allowing the construetion of an acccssorv structure in the front yard. Applicant: Daniel Kellas Fred Patch, Building Otlicial, advised that Daniel Kellas applied for a variancc to allow the construction of a 26 by 28 foot detached garage in the front yard area which is contradictory to the zoning ordinancc which states; "3-2/Df(2) No accessory building shall he erected or located within any required .vanl other than tlte rear yard." Staff feels that the ordinance was written with the purpose of preventing garages from being placcd in front of homes. Staff does not feel that it was the ordinances intcntion to deny such a request as this, where the applicants lot is unusually large and the principal structure is set back at such a great distance. I n this particular casc, the applicant does not meet the requiremcnts, however staff feels the uniqucness of the ncighborhood (unusually large lots, sizeable front yard setbacks) and the t~lct that the request for the variance is not contrary with the intent of the Zoning Code should be taken into consideration. Fred Patch pointed out additional reasons why thc request complies with the intcnt of the ordinance such as the construction of the garage will bring the property more into conformance with the developmcnt standards of the City; The structure is in keeping with -6- Planning COlllmission Minutcs- 06/05/0 1 . the character of the ncighborhood; the accessory structure will mect the front yard and side yard setbacks; thc accessory structure is set to the side and docs not interfere with sight-lines on cithcr side of structure and the accessory structure will not impair propcrty values. Thcre was discussion by thc mcmbers regarding previous structure that has since been removed, configuration of the house that may prohibit attached garage. Dan Kellas, applicant, stated that there had previously been a shed in that location that has been removed due to aesthetics. He also stated that thc location of thc proposed garage conforms with the U-shaped driveway which connects straight to the existing drivcway. Kel\as stated that his housc sits back at least 125 ft from the road, this is an older addition, his is a onc acre lot, there are no neighbors to the west, Montissippi Park is to the North. Kellas also described the neighborhood as to whcre houses and garages currcntly sit, and stated the construction will conform with all of the other buildings. Chair hie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. . Popilck stated he did look at the property and he does see this as a good conforming usc with the way things are currently situated therc. Dragsten asked Kellas if there was a reason why it could not be put back further or attached to the house. Kellas stated that one rcason is the driveway and access to the existing driveway which loops; couldn't use the existing pad as the previous structure was too small, and this was more economical to do it this way. Kellas also added that aligning it to thc house would make it appear to be one long structure and not as appealing. This also gives better access to the back yard. The members and Kellas also discussed somc old septic tanks located alongside the structure and what should be donc with them, which Patch advised on. Chair rrie discusscd the number ofrequcsts for variances on the agenda and asked if thcre werc some rationale to support these issues, could the Planning Commission, in their finding of facts rcgarding front yard struetures, find these justifiable requests. Grittman stated the necd to determinc reasonablc use of the property. Herbst advised or a residence along River strect that was previously used as a finding of fact for other requests. Richard Carlson felt because of the uniquencss of the propcrty, that they should allow thc cncroachment. He does not howevcr, feel there is a hardship. In regard to the septic situation, as far as a liability, he advised that the owncr should have them propcrlylillcd and covered. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILl-X AND SECONDED BY DICK FRlE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON TI-IE FACT THAT IT IS A UNIQUE . -7- Planning Commission Minlltes- 06/05/0 I . SITUATION TIIAT COMPLIES WITJI THE JNTEN'r OF TilE CODE. There was further discussion by Rod Dragsten to add language to the motion stating that the garage be no rurther forward than the existing house to the west of the appl icants property. Mr. Kellas added that the structure would not be in front or the neighbor's but in fact would be a few feet back. THEREFORE, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO AMEND THE MOTION, AS STATED. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of a request for a variance from the 10 foot side yard setback rec]Uirement within the R-l Zoning District to allow the construction of a deck. Applicant: Shawn Ball. Fred Patch, Building OfficiaL advised that the applicant who resides at 4663 Pebblebrook Drive has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 23 by 15 foot deck. This deck would extend 4 feet over the J 0 foot side yard setback allotted in the R- I district, which would leave 6 feet from the deck to the property line. . Patch advised that there appears to be other options for the applicant, one of which is constructing a 23 by 1 I foot deck, which would meet the setback requirements. With the availability of other options, the requirement that the city find a hardship is a difficult one to meet. A variance in this case, based on the materials presented, does not appear to be justified by the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's were not receptive to 23 by 11 foot deck stating they felt it wasn't enough room with the size of their family and once putting out patio furniture, etc. Clint Herhst asked if we did previously reduce to 5 it setbacks for decks and Patch stated that it was only in the downtown district. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Ball advised further their reasoning for wanting the variance stating there is a window in the back of the house that is levcl with the ground and they would like to not have that covercd up, also noting the deck would bc 4 ft away rrom the corner. They would also have to move a large play structure if they were not allowed the variance. Mrs. I3all also advised that the neighbors have a vinyl fence dircctly on their property line and was wondering if that was allowed. Frie advised the zoning ordinance regarding fences. Ball also stated thcre are no windows on the neighbors house so that would not be an issue in constructing thc deck. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten adviscd the applicant that side yard . -8- Planning COllllllission Minutcs- 06/05/01 . setbacks are there for a reason and also stated that if the applicant were to sell this property at some time in the future, the next owner could put in a 3 season porch, enclosing the deck and that this would create a problem. A MOTION WAS MADE I3Y ROBI3IE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A fiNDING TIIA T THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE A V AILABLE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK THAT WOULD MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of an animal hospital in the B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital. Steve Grittman, City Planner, advised that Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of their facility at 1260 Cedar Street. The expansion will accommodate new reception, waiting and examination rooms, and a remodeling of the existing facility. The project will include extensive exterior building improvements as well, consisting primarily of burnished block and stucco. . The site plan illustrates 29 parking spaces, in compliance with Ordinance requirements. All other dimensional requirements of the B-3 District are met, with one exception. The section which establishes Animall-Iospitals as Conditional Uses in the B-3 District requires that side yard sethacks arc to be increased from the typical 10 f()ot requirement in the B-3 District to a minimum of 20 feet. The south boundary line constitutes a side lot line, from which the building expansion would be set baek about 12 feet at its closest point. The existing building is set back just 10 feet from the line, an existing non- eonforming condition. To avoid tabling the proposal to consider a side yard sethack variance, the applicant should revise the plans so that the expansion meets the 20 foot requirement. It should be noted that the requisite hardship to approve a varianee request would likely be difficult to find, since reasonable use of the property can be made without the variance. The members discussed an amendment to the code relating to Pet Ilospitals but it was stated that a public hearing had not been noticed at this time. It was advised that this eould be done prior to the council meeting of June 25 if needed. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Joel Erickson, owner/applicant at 1260 Cedar SL stated the plans that were submitted to Patch wcre the initial plans, but as hc reviewed the stalTreport he has rcviscd and the setback in question is now actually at 20 to 30 It., although he does qucstion why a veterinarian clinic would be treated differently. Erickson addcd that they lnay, at some time in the future, want to expand their building . -9- . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 even more and thc setbacks would then be an issue. Erickson stated they had already decided to scale back prior to hearing ofthe required setbacks for their building, but again stated that after seeing being advised of this stipulation, he wanted to discuss this matter. Richard Carlson noted that the site plan shows a fcnced in area basically over the propcrty line and Erickson stated it is an cxisting fence which has been there for approx. 8 years and it docs run full length near the property line. Orittman advised it meets code and Erickson added that when they installcd it stalf did not question it nor were the setback rcquirements for a vet clinic discussed. It was stated that staff is supportive of this expansion and regarding thc setback stipulation, the planning commission may consider at anothcr time, an amcndmcnt to the codc. Also notcd was that another option regarding the setbacks is a variance. but hardship would be difficult to establish. Chair Frie closed thc public hcaring. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON T'O RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, RASED ON A FINDING TIIA T 'fHE SITE COMPLIES WITH TIlE B-3 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE .TULY 3fm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ADDRESS THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR VETERINARIAN CLINICS IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. II. Publ ic IIearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to thc front yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage. Applicant: Linda Obrycki. Fred Patch, Building Official, adviscd that thc new property owner of the residcnce located at 401 Front Strect is rcquesting a twenty five (25) foot variance from the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback and from the rcquircment that all detachcd accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard. Thc lot where the rcsiclence is located was originally created from the vacation of that portion of Front Street lying 165.76 fect west of Linn Strect. The vacated strcet was combined with a remnant wcdgc of land that formed a portion of formcrly Block 62. Original Plat. Thc house was built toward the front ofthc lot and oriented to takc -10- Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 . advantage of the view of the river. The location of the proposed detached garage is in thc front yard and would likely cause yehicles to be parked in the boulevard. It would sit far forward of the adjoining residence to the south and be the predominant feature at the corner of Linn Street and Front Street. Several alternate locations are possible howeyer, after visiting the property it appears that the most practieal alternative is to attach a 16 foot by 24 foot garage onto the east end of the existing house. A single stall garage in that location will provide for a honl yard sethack of approximately 20 feet and will not intensify the encroachmcnt into the 50 foot setbaek ham the ordinary high water level mark of the river. In that loeation the garage would be in line with the house, appear to helong in the neighhorhood, and preserye all of the trees on the lot. Setbacks in the area suggested arc 50 feet from OHW of the river, 15 feet from top of hluff, 30 feet from front/east property line. A variance would still he required as the garage would be constructed within the front setback area and into the 50 foot setback area from the ordinary high water level mark of the river. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Linda Obrycki, applicant, advised that she chose to place the garage in this location as the front of the house is actually toward the River. There is currently a tarred area (approx. 50 ft) and curbing ncar the road and a wooded area sits on the other side. Obrycki stated her concern with an attached garage is that there is erosion occurring in front of the property by the Rive. She did state however, that if she had to move the garage up further she feels it would not hlock any view, stating the houses above hers are higher and the garage would not hlock anything more than what the house hlocks. Orhrycki was also concerned that if she had to put in footings it may cause problems with the river bluff. Other options were also discussed which Obrycki had researched, although shc did have concerns with them. She added that she will also remove the existing shed. Bev Abrahamson, I Linn Street, adjacent to 401 Front St, stated hcr concern with the variance is that she feels the houses arc already very close together with only approx. 18 ft hetween them. She added that she was in favor of the applicant wanting a garage and that she only wanted clarification as to where the garage was proposed to be placed. Chair Frie suggested that possibly this item be tabled and let the applicant work directly with staff on her options. It was asked if the applicant could reduce the sizc of the proposed garage to 20 ft versus 24 ft and it was discussed that this could be looked at. Fred Patch clarified the setbacks for the water rnark and hluff lines and added that he had been advised by hoth the Puhlic Works Director and the City Engineer that there will be a sanitary sewcr reconstruction project in this area soon, and asked that the Planning Commission not reeommend moving the garage any closer to the road than what is . - 11- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I suggested in the staff report. Clint Herbst stated he did not feel it was right to limit this applicant due to the City's need to work on the sanitary sewer reconstruction. Chair frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion that this is a unique property and that the Planning Commission had also previously allowed something similar for another homeowner in that neighborhood. The members did feel, however, that the garage should be attached but that it could be wider. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ALLOW A TEN (10) fOOT REDl.JCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW A TEN (10) FOOT REDUCTION fROM TIlE FIFTY fOOT SETBACK FROM THE RIVER OHW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 401 LINN STREET. Motion died for lack ofa second. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ALLOW A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FOOT A TTACIIED GARAGE TO THE RESIDENCE AT 401 LINN STREET. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOT'ION. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission advised stair to investigate the sanitary sewer reconstruction situation for clarification and advise them at the July meeting. 12. Public I [earin\.! _ Consideration of a reClUest l<.x a variance to the front yard setback to allow construction of a 24' x 40' detached \.!arage. ADPlicant Chad Latvaaho. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report. The owner of the residence located at 9 Riverside Circle, desires to construct a twenty four by forty foot (960 square foot) detached accessory building between Otter Creek and his driveway, in the front yard area of his property. In order for him to be able to do this, he is requesting a variance from the required thirty (30) foot fi"ont yard setback, and a variance from the requirement that all detached accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard. [n addition to the variances, and only ifthe variances are allowed by the Planning Conunission, Mr. Latvaaho must apply for a conditional use permit to exceed the 1,200 square foot maximum allowable area for garage and accessory building area. If the new accessory building is allowed, the total garage and accessory bui Iding area on this property will be approximately 2256 square feel, 1,056 square feet in excess of the maximum allowed as a permitted use. The lot where Mr. Latvaaho's residence is located is at the end of the cui-dc-sac and lies -12- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . along the sensitive environmental area on the north shore of Otter Creek as it 110ws into the Mississippi River. The property lies in the shoreland overlay district and is regulated by Chapter 27, Regulating the Management oCthe Mississippi Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System and the Shoreland Areas ofthe City of Monticello. While the location for the proposed accessory structure will support the size of the building, it would be in a location that is relatively remote from the principal residence of Mr. Latvaaho. Because the accessory structure would be in front of and along side of several adjacent residences, the primary aesthetic impact is against the neighboring properties. The front yard view from the residences to the north would be directly at the overhead garage doors. The residence to the west would view the side of the accessory structure rather than the vegetation along Otter Creek. The area where the accessory structure could he built falls outside of the 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark elevation for Otter Creek; however, the area is filled with trees and natural vegetation that would have to he removed to allow for the building. . If an accessory structure is to be built in the area desired by the applicant, the Planning Commission would have to allow a front yard setback variance of approximately 10 feet, and a variance from the requirement that accessory structures must be located in the rear yard. Thereafter, the applicant may apply for a conditional use penuit for in excess of 1,200 square feet of garage and accessory structure. The impact of the structure on vegetation in the shoreland district may he considered at that time. The shape and situation of the property, the setbacks from the ordinary high water mark elevation for Otter Creek and the River, and the drainage easements on most of the lot area south of the residence do not appear to allow for a practical situation for the type of structure desired hy the applicant. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Chad Latvaaho, applicant, stated the proposed structure would be turned at an angle and he could recluce the size somewhat if necessary. He also stated that he believed putting the structure there is a better alternative than having his stuff sitting around in view. Latvaaho also stated he would have to remove only 3 small trees ancl that he cannot put another structure any closer to his home. Chair frie asked the applicant why a 1200 sq ft building would not be large enough, and also stated there are environmentally sensitive issues and neighhorhood concerns as well. Latvaaho did state he had hear from other neighbors stating they disapprove, but he added that he would put up a very quality structure. As far as the larger bui Iding, he stated he does need more space as he has a lot of things to put in it. [<'rie advised that the Planning Commission did increase to the size of accessory structures allowable to 1200 sq. n. several months ago, adding that the applicant's request is for quite a hit more. . -13- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I . Jenny Klein, 1133 W. River St., whose home is directly across from Latvaaho's garage location stated personally that this location would block her view as she currently looks out into a cul-de-sac. It was advised that the standard is set for the residential area with houses in the front and a detached structure in front doesn't seem to fit. Rachel GilaI'd, 4 Riverside Circle whose propcrty is southwest of Latvaaho's, stated they are worried about the structure having a negative impact on the neighborhood as well as their conccrn for the removal of trees. She did state however, that she understands the need for a building but again stated that this structure would afTect the view of the neighbors property, as well as the view of the river. Gilard also provided a letter from anothcr neighbor, Dennis Anderson who resides at 5 Riverside Circle and could not attend the public hearing, stating his opposition to this variance as well. Frie asked the Gilard's if they would rather view the boats, snowmobiles, etc. than having these items out of view in a structure. Gi lard stated that they do not notice them and they are not permanent as they are being moved, unlike the proposed building. She also advised that Mr. Latvaaho had just moved in. . Walter M., resident at 3 Riverside Circle, stated that his house us across and up the hill from the applicant's and although the structure would not directly affect him he is concerned for the overall feel of the neighborhood, adding that this is a very heavi Iy wooded, private neighborhood. He added that he is supportivc of the neighbors and that the proposed structure would be out of sight of the applicant's house, it would be obstructing the view of the neighbors. Mr. Latvhaao again stated that he understands his neighbor's concerns and was trying to be neighborly. \'atvhaao added that he could just put up a fence or tarp around his things instead or possibly a privacy fence on his property. The public hearing was closed. Popilek stated there is already a large 3-stall garage and that he would be concerned with aesthetics as well, noting his opposition to the applicant's request. Dragsten stated that the person owning this property has the right to do what he wants to do with his property in following the city's ordinances, but also stated that an accessory structure cannot exceed 1,200 sq 1'1. Carlson stated that the reality is that this structure would either be in the Cront of or in the rear of SOl11cone's property and his concern is for the neighbors as well. Chair frie added that with all the requests for variances to Cront yard setbacks this evening, there must be something amiss and he would like this to be addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting. . -14- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 Patch advised that the applicant should not go away t'celing that he can rcmove trecs as thcre is the Wild & Scenic arca. The applicant can only removc trecs to build a new structure and advised that the applicant cannot put up a temporary storage. Jeff O'Neill clarified that the creek does lie within that district as well, although the applicant felt otherwise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON TIff: FOLLOWING: AESTHETIC CONSIDERATION FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE AREA ALONG OTTER CREEK, AND THAT REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT BEING DENIED. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of a request for Developmcnt Stage Planned Unit Development for two, 2 unit townhouses. Applicant: RA Associates. Steve Grittman, City Planner, adviscd that Rick Anderson has requested Development Stage PUD approvalllw his proposed project at Maple Strcet and West Broadway. This project was previously approved as a Concept Stage pun, although there was some significant discussion on the density issue, since the project needed a variancc from the strict lot arca per unit requirements, bascd on the type of unit being proposed. However, the Il)ur units were approved, with the understanding that the unit stylc would better fit into the character or the neighborhood, and that the projcct design would be sensitive to both the existing developmcnt and the exposure to Broadway. The applicant's plans il1ustrate an orientation toward Broadway fl)r the corner unit, with doorways facing that direction. The garagc orientation is toward Maple Street, but as noted in the Concept Plan rcport, the drivcway combination allows for less pavement and landscaping that dc-emphasizes the garage component. The landscape plan il1ustrates a site treatment that should help to crcate a "courtyard" fcel in the driveway area. Planning staff has two recommended additions to enhance the plan and help to justify thc use or PUD in this case. The first would be to further cmphasize the Broadway orientation of thc corner unit by dirccting a short segmcnt of sidewalk to Broadway from the front door. Thc proposed landscaping could then border this walkway, instead of interfering with thc front door vicw of the building. The second suggestion would be to install a small open tCnce along the front property line, between the two driveways. This visual scparator would also help to de-emphasize the view orthe driveways and garage doors. The Planning Commission were supportivc of this project, although they did state they -15- . . . Planning Cornmission Minutes - 06/05/01 were still not comfortable with the density. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR MAPLE STREET TOWN HOMES, WITH CONDITIONS RELATED TO SIDEWALK PLACEMENT AND FENCING DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. Motion carried unanimously. Roy Popilek would like the record to refleet his concern with the density as well. 14. Consideration of a request for a ConditionalU se Permit to allow a 2,500 square foot restaurant in a shopping center in the CCD zoning district. Applicant: Silver Creek Develomnent. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a restaurant in the Town Center shopping center, a parcel zoned CCD between Walnut Street and Ilighway 25. A previous Conditional Use Permit approval was granted to the shopping center for a parking space deficit hased on an anticipated retail use ofthe building. Restaurants have significantly increased parking demand, and as such, would require the City to grant a new permit for a greater deficit. Restaurants arc, otherwise, permitted uses in the CCD zoning district, and as policy, would be supported by the Comprehensive Plan fl.)r this area. The issue in this case is parking supply and demand. The approvals were given to the original project with an understanding that the shopping center north of the central driveway (5 Y2 Street) would be 29 parking spaces short of the total demand (65 estimated required, and 36 supplied). The liquor store lot would be developed with an additional 3,000 square feet of space, with a portion of its 41 space parking dcmand to be accommodated by both the liquor store parking lot and Walnut Street parking. The original permit was supported on the basis that under ajoint parking arrangement. the actual parking demand for the site would be less than that stated in the ordinance. Some of the overflow could be accommodated by allowing retail access to the liquor store parking lot. and other parking could be located in the Walnut Street area (displacing current Community Center parking to the llnderutilized west parking lot). The City had also negotiated a requirement for the shopping center developer to add overflow parking on the north side of the railroad tracks if dcmand dictated. Finally. the City included a fee !In' the parking deficit in its price negotiation on the property. Converting 2,500 square feet from retail to restaurant would result in an increased -16- Planning COl1ll1lission Minutes - 06/05/0 I . parking demand for that portion of the building alone from 11 parking spaces to 38. This would increase the deficit on thc north side of the site from 29 spaces to 56 spaces (not including the additional retail dcmand on the liquor store half of the block). Jeff O'Neill advised that staff had directed potential restaurants to check with Towne Centre to possibly be an allowable use in that space. Ci-rittman added that the ceD docs encourage restaurants in this district. Planning statT has been supportive of cross-parking arrangements that rcduce the amount of space devoted to parking in the ceo area. This is based on research indicating that mixed use projects with cross-parking activity can reduce actual parking demand to as little as 600ft) of the demand when calculated on a building by building basis. For the block in question, a typical requircment of approximately 150 spaces could be reduced to as little as 90 spaces, particularly when there is a reliable ovcrflow supply. . There arc somc limits to this site, however. The design of the block eliminates on-street parking on Highway 25, and severely restricts it along 6th Street (south of the block). Walnut Street's supply has already been factored in, and the overflow to the north is separatcd from the block by the railroad. Complicating the issuc is the fact that the liquor store relies on a significant level of boat/trailer traffic that utilizes parking spaces at twice thc typical rate during peak times. As a result, adding an additional demand of approximately 27 spaces to this block would appear to be difficult to handle without some other accommodation. There would be two options to consider that would minimize the impacts of this request - increasing supply. or reducing demand. To reduce demand, the restaurant size could be limited, or the retail expansion on the liquor store building could be reduccd in size. To incrcase supply, the applicant could attempt to add parking in proximity to this site. Improvements to 6lh Street would be one possibility, although this may impact the business parking in that area. Other improvements have recently been made that assumed (-)th Street parking improvements would not be necessary. Acquisition of public parking casements over the existing private parking lots south of 6th Street may be another option to pursue. O'Neill asked Grittman about parking being built on the other sidc of the railroad tracks as well as utilizing the library parking. asking if this could bc utilizcd or would it be too far; would the library need the parking at some point in the future. Grittman states that it is a bit inconvenient in that it is more toward thc back side ofthc retail space. and also addcd that we may havc already accountcd for these spaces in prcvious discussions, holding out as potential for overtlow. O'Neill asked that pcrhaps after 6 months of the site being up and running. parking could thcn be dctcrmined. llcrbst added that parking . -17- Planning Comm ission Minutes - 06/05/01 . behind the center could be utilized for employees, not for users. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Greg Moody, Spectra Building, stated they have had numerous requests ror restaurants in this space and concur with the city and the CCD that restaurant's are a good use in this area. Moody added that he would also like to explore parking to the north of the railroad tracks more. He also stated that he did count approx 40 stalls that could be utilized, which would make a deficient of 19. . The public hearing was closed. Robbie Smith stated that he likes the concepts, the issue is parking and he feels the city needs to look at the parking situation further. O'Neill advised that city council approved head-in parking at the Locust Street retail shops which will alleviate some of the parking deficiency therc. Frie stated he feels that the Planning Commission should not be relaxed with any further parking requirements. Frie asked about the options in the staff report and if the applicant was familiar with them. Mr. Moody was concerned if this meant they are dccreasing square footage for increased parking. Moody added that people want to see a place that is busy, and that they may have to walk which most people are comfortable with. O'Neill added that the problem at China ButTet is not a problem with code as thc city is trying to increasc on-strect parking. llerbst also added that when there is a restaurant people are willing to walk, more so than walking to a retail spot. Access from the back is also an option. Wanda Kraemcr, Townc Centre, addcd that the sidewalks would have awnings, enclosed arca and it would not be like parking in thc back of a building. Richard Carlson stated his extreme opposition to parking on 6th Street and hc was not excited about the possibility of using the library parking lot, wants staffto respond to "acquisition of parking lot easements. . . ". Grittman stated that this would bc the office building parking lot stating therc secms to bc ample parking therc as well and this would be anothcr option if an owner was willing to work with them or willing to sell. Dragsten added that he feels this strip mall is nice, although therc still seems to be some problems with parking. He stated this sitc becomes a morc intcnsc use with thc liquor store being located therc as well. Popilek statcd hc is conccrncd also with parking but excited about the possibility of another restaurant. O'Neill again adviscd that staff has not completed a detailed analysis of this parking area in regard to thc possible Library expansion. O'Neill asked if possibly the commission and the applicant would like to continuc to one morc Planning Commission cyclc to determine the parking. I Ierbst states it may be in the hest interest of the developer to table and let stall do an ovcrview of the parking, having the applicant call for a special mceting in two weeks; feels there are good useS between the Community Center & Towne Center. Wanda Kraemcr advised that part of thc development agreement includcs the parking spaces. Carlson asked about liquor store parking peak times and how it . -18- . . . Planning COll1ll1ission Minutes - 06/05/0 I coincides with a restaurant's peak parking time and Grittman advised that they would most likely be different times. Chair Frie asked if 2 weeks was acceptable to the applicant and they stated it would be. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO TABLE ACTION ON TI-IE CUP, PENDING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PARKING, AND TENTATIVELY SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/25/01 AT 6 PM, PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. 15. Consideration of a request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow a second freestanding sign on certain properties in the B-3, l-lighwav Business District. Applicant: Monticello Dodge. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the statf report stating Monticello Dodge is seeking approval of an amendment to the text of the sign regulations that would allow the City to approve a second freestanding sign on certain property. The request is made due a concern that because of the large size of this site, and the two primary exposures (Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road), one freestanding sign along the freeway would not be adequate to direct customers to the site from Chelsea Road. The rationale behind the request is based on the need to communicate with two types of traffic (freeway and street), and that one sign is inadequate to do both jobs on large sites. Ifsuch an allowance is to be made, statTwould recommend that the following conditions be attaehed to limit the proliferation of signs where they are not "needed" to accommodate the concerns raised by the applicant: 1. 2. Only B-3 property would be eligible. Only property that fronts both on the freeway and on a second major road (collector or higher status) The site must be at least two acres in size, and the signs should be no closer than 300 feet apart. The sign fronting on the access road should be of monument style design, including limits of 10 feet in hcight and sixty square feet in area. T'he sign fronting on the freeway should conf()fm to the requirements of the ordinance regulating frcestanding signs (32 feet in height, 200 square feet in area). Second sign allowance is applied to individually described parcels, not business occupants, and does not apply to sites seeing development flexibility allowances under PliO provisions. 130th signs must mcet all other standards of the sign regulations, including size and sethacks. ., -) . 4. 5. 6. 7. -19- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . Please note that the Dealership has ordered a pylon sign (22' high) for Chelsea Road that meets current standards. Unfortunately, this sign will not be useable without modifications under the proposed amendment. An amendment with these provisions would allow a second freestanding sign to a limited number of properties in addition to Monticello Dodge. A sophisticated inventory was not conducted, however, Gould's Chevrolet would be an eligible site, and] Ioglund Bus may be another on the south side of the freeway. Other sites are likely to be too small, or already subject to PUD allowances. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bill Rambow, Denny lIecker Dodge, stated it was their understanding when they made the application they were applying for additional signage. Mr. Olson, V 00 Doo signs, stated they had, in deed applied for a different sign and provided the necessary information. ] Ie did state that they did receive the permit for the sign on the east side, the other two are the ones they arc requesting, the other free standing sign is 35ft high. Jeff O'Neill added that the sign system being proposed is not under a PUD, they have met the code, and the sign system is far less intensive than the Dave Peterson Ford sign system. O'Neill added that this is not an extreme sign system and the situation is that they applied for a pylon sign on Chelsea Road, meeting all requirements, and the permit has been issued for that sign. This ordinance amendment is now in process so that when the applicant proceeds with the freeway sign, even though it meets current code, the sign system would not be in compliance with the amended code which states that it is to be a 1110nUment sign on Chelsea Rd. O'Neill also stated that the appl icant would have to apply for a variance if this ordinance amendment is approved. Grittman advised the Planning Commission that the City does not have a process to approve a second free standing sign at this time and therefore the amendment request. Mr. Rambow states that they need signage for 1~94 & Chelsea Rd and that it needs to be done tastefully. Grittman adyised that if the Planning Commission feels what the applicant is proposing is acceptable to them, the ordinance amendment should be approved, adding that City staff chose monument signs for Chelsea Rd from an aesthetic standpoint. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Fred Patch added that the Planning Commission needs to look at who would be putting in these signs such as Gould's and Hoglund's, and that they would be tastefully done. A MOTION WAS MADE HY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMENO APPROV AL OF THE AMENOMENT TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS ALLOWING A SECOND FREESTANOING SIGN ON CERTAIN . -20- . .lli- . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 PROPERTY IN THE 8-3 DISTRICT. Motion carried 3 to 2 with Rod Dragsten and Richard Carlson voting in opposition. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a multiple family structure with ground i100r residential units in the CCD District. Applicant: Silver Creek Development. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising that Sil ver Creek Development is requesting a new Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 35 unit multiple family apartmcnt building on a 1.7 acre parcel along East 7lh Street. The parcel has multiple family residential uses on both sides, and abuts a commercial parking lot to the rear (north). Grittman provided the multiple t~Hnily building densities in this district stating that a mix of unit types would result in a maximum density between 24 and 33 units. The site plan layout was also provided which included a storm water pond in the northwest corner of the site, along with a "tot lot" north of the apartment building. An enclosed refuse room adjoins one of the garage buildings. The existing site conditions, based on the survey submitted with the application, indicates a heavily wooded area in the northeast corner of the site. The north one third of the property is slopcd dramatically down to the north. To accommodate the grade, the applicant proposes a retaining wall along the north boundary which would support the parking lot and the garage buildings. Staff suggested an alternative site plan that relocates the elements ofthe project, based on a slightly downsized apartment building that would comply with the density allowances (assuming a mix of one and two bedroom units). This building would be placed along the east boundary, and when shortened up to eliminate a few units, would save most of the trees in the northeast corner, particularly when combined with the retaining wall. The parking is relocated as well, and the garage buildings are eombined to break up the long, continuous wall created by the applicant's layout. The same number (24) of garage spaces are preserved, although surhlce parking is reduced to meet the 2 space per unit requirement. The tot lot is also retained at the same size. I Jowever, the revision allows it to be moved south, away from the slope. Less retaining wall would appear to be required, and more green space would be preserved. Finally, this site would lend itself to a basement parking garage. The slope would accommodate a garage entrance on the north side of the bui Iding, with more than one underground space per unit. Such a dcsign would preserve even more green space by eliminating some of the surface parking needs. StafT would encourage the applicant to consider this concept. -21- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . Chair hie opened the public hearing. Greg Moody, Spectra Building Group, addressed the Commission stating their concern with some of the staff recommendations, as well as stating the amenities such as that the apartments are a rnixed use development with 1,2, and 3 units, upscale with fireplaces, community room on the main level, decks (screened), the units are somewhat larger, and the exterior will have brick on the lower portion which blends well in the area. This is also a full security building. Moody also addcd that the current market shows that a third of people are empty nesters, young professionals, married couples with one child, and this is the type of market they are trying to achieve. Moody also advised that they could sketch a pathway from Th Street which would tie into the future intent of the City with a pathway on the railroad right-of- way, tying into the city's trial system. Moody also advised the position of the units on the site would be wall to wall, stacked back to back, and this set up would lend a better view and they do feel they have the building in a position they like. Underground garages are not feasible in this area. They also advised that they would like approval of the concept as submitted and are willing to work with staff to modify somewhat as they feel the concept is good. Moody also stated they will be preserving trees but will be removing brush and adding landscaping. Again they stated they feel they can get 33 mixed units on this site. . Steve Grittman clarified that the CCD had a scparate clause for density which is 9,000 sq. ft. per ground 110ar unit, adding that it looks as though they applied the R-3 standards to get them to this range. Grittman stated that the code was designed to discourage ground floor units near commercial areas. Holly, site manager at the adjacent apartment complex, stated she preferred the applicant's site plan versus the staff's alternate plan as she felt they would much rather look at the applicant's view than directly at their building. Also noted that she frequently gets calls for market rate apartments and sces there is a great demand in this area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Grittman adviscd that thc ceo has a clause stating density could be increased irthere werc structured or underground parking available, intended to mcan somc kind of attached parking which typically is underground. They also discussed the previous townhomc project proposed, but it was stated by the applicant that the numbers didn't work. O'Neill advised also that the DAT looked at this concept and they recommended approval. Grittman statcd that if the building was downsizcd it wouldn't make a difference on which side the unit was placed. The members questioncd (jrittman as to a way to increasc the density to make this plan work and hc statcd thcy could zone it a PUO as thcy did with thc prcvious Maple Strcct application. Moody also statcd that they do have more acreage availablc that was not figured into this . -22- . 12 . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 plan, which would increase thc density allowed. Grittmall stated that thc Planning Commission may want to approve this concept plan with the condition that they would work with staff to meet the density. It was noted that staff and applicant will review new information rcgarding the amount of acreage being 1.9 acres versus the previously stated 1.7 acres. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDEO BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITI I TI IE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, REDUCING THE UNIT COUNT DENSITY TO MEET ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a rcClLlest for development stage Planned Unit Development allowing multiple structures on an industrial site. Applicant: Blue Chip Development. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report. Previous discussions with the applicants had raiscd an issue ofthc location of the loading docks to the south, and whether it would he possible to reorient the buildings to move the docks to an area that would be less exposed to the residential properties to the south. The applicant's architect supplied two optional layouts showing the huildings turned ninety degrees and both of these drawings are intended to demonstrate that even with rcdesigncd buildings, the spaec is too narrow to accommodate the truck turning movemcnts on the site. Planning staff belicves that the options are rcasonably represcntative, and would agrec that thc loading can not he rcoriented as staff had hoped. The applicant has relocated the ccntral driveway, and the preliminary floor plans illustrate compliance with expected parking demand on thc sitc. Neithcr ofthc buildings propose outdoor storagc, and the lighting plan appears to show that there will be almost no spillover light onto the residential property. Thc approval should spccify that there will be no yard lights on the south sides ofthe building, and that wall lights will he shielded to avoid direct glare. With regard to the landscape plan, the applicant proposes a bufTeryard planting in a rear yard of just over 20 feet in dcpth, in compliance with the requirements of the district adjacent to vacant property. Thc adjoining residential property is being developed by Eagle Crest, and will also includc butTeryard plantings in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the requirements for this district arc at least RO "plant units" per 100 feet of property. This would require a total of 344 plant units along the bulTeryard area. The proposed planting includes 12 evergreen trees at 15 plant units each, and 11 deciduous trees at 10 plant units each, for a total of 290 plant units. The addition of a herm, an opaque fence, or more evergreen plant material would bring the butTeryard into compliance. Because this is a PU D, stafr would rccommend a fence to augmcnt the -23- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . plantings as the most effective screen, as well as increasing security. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Formato, resident at 4935 Stoneridgc Lane which is the town home developmcnt adjacent to the pond, across from the proposed development, advised that he was concerned about the noise and lighting, stating that there is a lighting problem alrcady in that area, very lit up. He also added that he was at the meeting representing the other residents of the townhome project. Hc fecls that bccause the business to the north of thcir development has not complied with City ordinance, that possibly this new development would not comply either. He did also stated, however, that he has never asked City staffto look into that business, .IME. not mecting the ordinance requirements. O'Neill advised that thcre is a formal letter that has been issued and the matter has been turned over to the City Attorney. Another resident on Stoncridge Lane stated his same concerns, adding that he would like the applicant to provide a buffer as well. Chair Frie stated the need to stay on top of enforcing that these conditions are met. . Gene Branstrom, architect for Blue Chip, advised that they did supply the City with a lighting type, which is actually very little, stating that lighting would not go beyond the property line. As far as the concerns with the noisc, these would be small users with not much activity from that side of the building. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Roy Popilek stated that he believes this neighborhood has these concerns due to the violations by the neighboring JME business, and he advised also that staff is working on resolving this matter. He also asked about the existing berm being increased as it was previously which may alleviate some of the noise and site concerns. Rod Dragsten addcd that the berm is important, as well as the plantings, lighting and fencing. Frie stated that we should inelude no outdoor storage allowed, as a condition in the motion. It was noted by staff that the applicant has provided trash cnclosures and that the lighting would be wall mounted, stating this is also addressed in the recommendations. They also have a lighting plan that shows vcry little spill ovcr. Popilek asked Grittman what is a good standard height for a berm and he stated that it is regulated by space and slope, 3 to I slope, and may get up 3 to 4 ft in height to still be maintainable. In the space they have, it would be 3 to 4 ft. They also askcd about the fence possibly being placed on top of the berm, fences can be up to 6 feet in height. l3rad Barger, Blue Chip Development, stated that the berrn is on the parcel to the East which is one parcel over and is now a parking lot. Barger asked who is responsible tlJr the buffer and Grittman advised that each side provides half, the fencc is in addition. . -24- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . Grittman added that the City Engineer had concerns with this area having a utility drainage easement, the plan shows some fill, the applicant may have to modify the plans to maintain storm water in that area. The current plan shows encroachment into an important ponding/drainage area. The size of parking/building will need to be reduced slightly in order to keep the developed area in the upland area. A MUfION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD fOR BLUE CHIP DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, WITII THE CONDITION THAT 1'1 IE BUFFER YARD BE INTENSIFIED WITH FENCING, OR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY, AND THAT LIGHTING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMENTS IN TIllS REPORT. MOTION IS ALSO CONTINGENT ON SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO THE STORM SEWER EASEMENTS ON TI-IE SITE. . There was further discussion by Roy Popilek regarding the possibility or the applicant putting an 8 ft fence on a 3 ft. berm which Grittman advised that it is certainly more directive and could be added to the motion. The commissioners stated that they would like to seen an 8 ft. opaque fence be required. Clint Herbst was concerned with who would be responsible for the cost associated with the buffcryard/screening, what portion of the cost should be borne by industrial and what portion f()f residential. Grittman added that going above and beyond the usual requirement is justified by allowing a PUD. CHAIR FlUE THEN AMENDED I lIS MOTION TO STATE THAT 'II IERE ALSO BE THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE ALLOWED AND THE APPLICANT IS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT (8) FOOT OPAQUE FENCE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMI:NDMENT. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Resolution of the Citv of Monticello Planning Commission finding that the modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for 1'1 F District No. 1-28 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised the Planning Commission that the resolution f()r adoption af11rms that the Planning Commission finds that the "Plans" arc consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Monticello. The "Plans" in this case re1Cr to the Plans of the CMRP No. I and TIF District 1-29, and not the site or building plans of the redeveloper. The Contract t()l" Private Development between the I IRA and the Developer states that the site and building plans shall comply with all Fedcral, State, and local laws and ordinances. . -25- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 . The Planning Commission is affirming that the "Plan" is consistent with the general plans for development of the City and its Comp Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADOP'r TIlE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED. Motion caITied unanimously. 19. Review proposal for development of a mixed use residential development at Wildwood Ponds bv Fan Development. It was noted that this item was pulled from the MOAA agenda for 6/6/01. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised that the Planning Commission is asked to comment on a FaIT Development proposal to develop a mixed use residential neighborhood at the 38 acre Ralph Hermes property. The original preliminary plat/development concept for this site prepared by the developer envisioned development of single I~lmily homes. Due to extraordinary development costs associated with this site, there is the need to increase density from approximately 2.7 units per acre to just less than 4 units per acre. PIcase note that 4 units per acre fall within the category of low density residential. The proposal calls for 27 single family lots, 28 detached townhomes, 38 attached townhome units and 40 units in 5 eight-plex structures. . As part of the research on this matter, Dick Frie and Steve Grittman participated in a tour of similar developments. Generally staff supports a mixed use concept ineluding single family and townhomes, however we are not as supportive of the proposal f(weight-plex units. Last of all, staff is working on providing the information requestcd regarding the city's housing mix. Mikc Gail', MFRA, addressed the Planning Commission and advised that Lucinda Gardner with FaIT Development, Ralph Hermes, owner of the property, and Mr. Hermes daughter & son-in-law were also present. Clair stated their next step is to go to preliminary plat, PlJD proccss. The property is located in the southeast corner of the City and is in MO^A district. Adjoins Wildwood Ridge and on the southern portion is Rolling Woods. There are 36 acres, exclusive of the County Rd 18 ROW with little vegetation on site and some trees, approximately 4 acres. Gair also showed the storm water movement through the site and stated they have worked with WSB to develop a storm water ponding system that works with this site. Gair stated also the water that leaves the site is going to be lifted from the site and moved west, which would react bvorably to Ditch 33, but there is a cost associated with it. Gail' added that there are three intersections providing access to this site. Gair added that their concept plan shows there is enough material available to elevate the . -26- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I . sites which is in response to the concerns of WSB and the site includes a stormwater lift station and would preserves wetlands. Gail' stated he felt this development would add a significant tax base. Gair also added the mix of densities they were proposing. Chair Frie asked what the zoning would be for this site and it was stated that typically it would be zoned R-l, and as of now the guideline states low density. Also advised was that townhomes are not permitted in R-l, so this would have to be addressed by a conditional use permit. Frie stated his concern with the City is running out ofMOAA land, also noting a concern of the City Council for affordable, upscale housing as well. Steve Grittman stated that some townhome development could be accommodated as units per acre is how they would be determined. He added that they could have a mix that fit into the density of 4 units per acre, but would have to havc somc other type of zoning that would comply with the density. Frie stated his undcrstanding is that this does not fit with the City's Comp Plan. O'Neill cautioned that when looking at the comp plan they have to look at 4 units per acre. Frie was also concerned with green space to which Lucinda Gardner statcd on the single l~lmily lots this is allowed for, adding that having strictly all single family homes docs not work in this area dollar-wise as the cost to develop is too great. . Roy Popilek asked what staff's concern is with eight- plexes and Grittman advised the City has had them previously and that they are not happy with them. From a staff standpoint, they encourage some mix of units but the issue f()f communities is how much mix is appropriate. Rod Dragsten felt that it is somewhat of a nice plan, may be somewhat of a variation in regard to upper-scale, single lamily homes and eight-plexes. Lack of upper-end housing, economics a problcm as well. Richard Carlson stated economics seem to be the sole reason for higher density; how about geographically. Grittman states no, need to preserve the core of the City for the higher density areas, but at same time encouragcs mixcd housing approach. O'Neill addcd that economically for the City, this could be a better development. ^ MOTION WAS MADE 8Y ROD DRAGSTI-<:N AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE CONCEPT AT THIS LOCArION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EIGHT-PLI~XES. Motion carricd 4 to I with Dick Frie voting in opposition. Chair Fric advised he would like clarification on Comprehensive Plan. Chair hic also advised stajTto address the 531 W. Broadway issue at the July planning . -27- . . . 20. Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I eommission meeting as there was not sufficient time due to the length of this agenda. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED I3Y RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN TI-IE MEETING AT 12:05 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. ~ -28-