Planning Commission Minutes 03-12-2002
.
.
.
Memhers:
Stafr:
MINUTES
REG ULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -March 12,2002
7:00 P.M.
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
I . Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM. Chair Frie advised that item 12 on the
agenda had heen pulled.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held Februarv 5. 2002.
..,
.J.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
Till.: REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HELD FEBRUARY 5, 2002. ROD
DRAUSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Robbie Smith asked about Kens' Service Station located on East Broadway regarding the
storage of cars parked there. This was added as item number 14.
Chair Frie asked about staff policy regarding returning phone calls to the general public.
added as Item 14B.
Chair Frie asked the determining Llctors on posting road restrictions - Fred Patch advised.
Chair Frie asked for an update on the Mielke project, added as item 14C.
Chair Frie asked for an update regarding the special meeting held the previous night and
i r the City Council had reviewed that item. O'Neill stated that the City Council was
updated. but they will not review until the March 25, 2002 meeting.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Puhlic I learing - Consideration ofa request for a 28' variance to the sign ordinance heil!:ht
requirement. Applicant: Joel Pettit/Amoco
John Glomski, planner, provided the staff report noting the applicant's request for a 28'
variance to the 32'height limit designated f(Jr a pylon sign in the B-3 district adjacent to a
Freeway or Expressway. The request for the variance is in essence a request to continue
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/] 2102
the existing lawful nonconfl:mnity in height standard allotted for the Amoco sign.
cLlrrcntIy at 60'. The pylon sign' s hcight would remain at 60' whi Ie the image on the sign
face would change Ji-om the "Amoco" logo to the "BP" trademark.
A property owner seeking a variance mustjustify that thc variance is necessary in order to
allow reasonable use of the property, and that there is a physical hardship in meeting the
basic zoning regulations. In this case, the applicant argues that the Lise relies heavily on
its visibility to interstate tratlic, thereflxe limiting its sign height to 32' will be
detrimental to its business. The applicant also thinks that limiting the sign height will
hinder its ability to compete with other competitors (Super Ameriea, Burger King) in the
area, which have 60' signs.
Staff understands the importance of interstate traf1ic to businesses, which is why land
with interstate exposure is so highly sought after. Staff doesn't feel, however that land or
businesses set back from the freeway should accomplish its exposure through the
heightening of its signs. Last of all, the motoring public is very Iumiliar with the Business
identification signs placed in the right of way by MnDOT, which lists the various
businesses at the next tl'eeway interchange. It is the view of City staff that these signs do
a sutTicientjob at telling the motoring public what is available at the next exit ramp.
Freeway oriented businesses such as this should rely on this signage rather than huge
pylons to note thcir presenee.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bruce Schwartzman, architect working with
BPI Amoco, stated that they are basieally proposing to take the existing oval shaped sign
and replace it with a square design having the new "BP" logo. He questioned the staff
report where it relates to structural altering and stated that they feel they are not altering.
only updating. I Ie also stated there are only about 6 existing signs of that hcight in place
at this timc and he felt these should be grandfathered in. He doesn't feel that amount of
density is detrimental. lhe property is set off the highway and the applicant's concern is
that not everyone sees the business identification signs, and therefore thc need fl:)I'the
larger sign. He is concerned that being off the highway and lowering the sign they will
have no visibility, which he feels would he a loss of business. Joel Pettit, applicant,
stated that particularly from the northbound traffic the sign would be not visible, and
motorists would see the SA sign only.
Roger Pribyl, manager of Super America, asked if the intent of the City is to only allow
sign heights of 32 fcet, and O'Neill stated that is the way the code reads. O'Neill also
stated that some signs were allowed to remain at the 60' height after the storm in '97 duc
to various circumstances, and now the way the code is written is that if a business
changes ownership. logo, or structure, the sign would need to be in confl:mnanee with the
existing ordinance. If they werc using the same sign and just maintaining it, they would
be allowed to keep it at it's existing height. Fred Patch noted the applicant wanted to use
.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
.
the same cabinet that exists now, this would then conf<'lrIl1. Chair Frie then closed the
public hearing.
hie asked the applicant if what caused thc rcqucst for the variance was due to new
ownership and Schwartzman stated Amoco was bought out by "BP" and the dealers have
the option to change over, although it is still Amoco gasoline. The brighter, cleaner look
is part ofthe new image. He stated they would keep the same squarc footage of the sign
and that there would be no text other than the "BP" letters up in thc corner. Frie asked if
they would be interested in withdrawing their application for a variance after hearing
from Fred Patch, Building Official, and Schwartzman stated that it is a possibility, but
that "BP" would prefer to replace the Amoco image with the new logo and shape. lie
again stated that the proposed sign is smaller than what is existing, but Frie stated that it
is still a different shape. Frie stated they would rather work with applicant to keep the
sign height and cont()fll1.
Patch advised the procedure for measuring sign heights in that they arc measured from
the center of the nearest lane of tranic, which for this business it would be II ighway 25 or
Oakwood Lane. Patch added that he felt this was more of a maintcnance issue since the
Amoco image is being dissolved.
.
Smith noted that the business is even closcr now to being on the Interstate as it is just ofT
the new exit ramp which is now closcr to the applicant's business. There was also
discussion as to where thcy felt the decision point was f()r motorists on the freeway.
Some felt it was once they exitcd the freeway and others l"elt it was prior to that, thcrefore
the importance of the visibility of the sign. Patch asked the applicant ifhc fclt that thc
sign would be bctter if it were lower, stating that it would be easier for a motorist to see
when on the exit ramp if it wcre lower rather than 60 feet. Schwartzman agreed that at
that location it would make sense to have it lower, but they are interested in 1-94
visibility. Pribyl stated that he felt motorists on the freeway rely a lot on travcling crcdit
cards and they may not see the husiness identification sign and therefore miss the cxit.
He believes that the point of purchase is not at that intersection but before or after. Frie
advised that the applicant has the control over this sign by either kccping it at the same
height and use the same oval shape, or bring it into conformancc.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO DENY TilE VARIANCE BASED
ON TilE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REASONABLl:: USE OF THE
PROPERTY, TIIAT NO IIARDSHIP HAS BEEN SHOWN TO JUSTIFY TilE
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE, AND TIIAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE
WOULD GO AGAINST THE INTENT OF THE CODE. ROBBIE SMITH
SECONDED 'l"HE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITII ROD DRAGSTEN
OPPOSING.
.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - 03112/02
.
Fred Patch advised the applicant that if they were to remove the point from the top of the
existing sign, this would be considered lnaintcnance. The applicant stated he was in
agreement.
6. Public I Iearing - Consideration of approving concept star..>:e, development star..>:e planned
unit development: and eonsideration of approval of a conditional use permit aUowini.'. an
auto body f~tcilitv and associated storage. Applicant: Prol!ressive Development & Const.
Co. Inc./Shawn Weinand
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report. Progressive Development and
Construction Company is requesting approval of a Concept Stage and Development Stage
Planned Unit Development (PUO) to allow the construction ofa 32,730 square J()ot
multi-tenant commereiaI huilding and 11,330 square foot mixed use building upon a 8.9
acre site located south ofInterstate 94 between Chelsea Road West and Marvin Road.
The processing of a planned unit development is neeessary to aceommodate the
encroachment of the use within the abutting Marvin Road right-or-way and mlto-repair
uses within the multi-tenant building. The subject parcel is zoned B-3, Highway
Business.
.
Grittman advised the adjacent uses and stated that the proposed use is considered
compatible with existing uses in the area, as well as consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Grittman stated that to aceommodate the plaeement or a portion or thc development
within the Marvin Road right-of-way and aLlto-related uses upon the property, the
processing of a PUO/Conditional Use Permit is necessary. He also stated that the PUD
process was prompted by a rcquest t()[ flexibility from a number of provisions of the
Ordinance, specifically the applicant requested that the location of an off-street parking
area within a puhlic ROW (Marvin Road) be allowed, a 10' principal building sctback
from a public street ROW be allowed, and that auto repair facilities within thc 11-3 district
be allowed.
Grittman advised the performance standards stating that the proposed building failed to
meet the 30 foot setback from Marvin Road, and also that portions of the Lot 1 parking
area lie within the Marvin Road right-or.way. lIe also noted that the future development
of Outlot B would require deviations from the Ordinance such as ofT-site parking and a
zero lot line building setback. Access is to be from three points along Chelsea Road West
and access to scveral properties north of the subject site is to be provided within a
driveway to be constructed within the Marvin Road right-of-way. Access related issues
should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the off-
street parking requirements would be satisfied, although he did state that if all off-street
parking spaces are provided upon Lot 1, it is recommended that cross parking and access
.
4
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
easements be created and rccorded with proposed Lot I, Block I to serve the off-strcet
parking demands of the "mixcd use" building proposed upon Outlot B. Grittman added
that all off.-strcet parking stalls and drive aisles havc been found to meet the minimum
dimensional rcquirements of the Ordinance.
Grittman advised a concern with parking area circulation stating a one-way circulation
routc had been proposed on the north and west sides of the Lot I huilding. Whilc the
one-way route within the service area is considcred acceptable, the one-way route within
the westerly parking area is likely to prcsent an inconvenience. To avoid such
inconvenience, it is recommendcd that a two-way circulation route he provided.
Also to be noted is that thc two huilding area summarics for Lot I providcd on the site
plan arc not consistent. Whereas a total "mixed use" allocation of 10,120 square teet is
identified on the building illustration, a total of 10,110 square fcet is listed in the
summary tahle provided. This should be corrected.
.
Griltlnan pointcd out on the sublllitted site plan that thc proposed Lot I commercial
building is to he located along thc northcrn boundary of the lot I, directly south of the
cxisting pond. As prcsently sitcd, the building's loading area would border thc wctland
and be highly visible to passersby on Chelsca Road West. To provide a more
aesthctically pleasing appcarancefr-om the roadway (and bctter exploit thc wetland as an
area aJllenity), consideration should hc given to relocating the building to the east side of
the property along Marvin Road. Existing Marvin Road would then serve as an "alley" of
sorts f()r commercial development to thc east and west.
In response to the citcd building oricntation concern, a design altcrnative has becn
prepared. The design alternativc attcmpts to exploit the ncarby pond as a sitc amenity
and screen scrvice activitics hy locating the building on the eastern half of the property.
It is hoped that this alternative can be used as a refercnce in the preparation of an
improved design concept.
Grittman statcd that 22,620 square teet of the multi-tenant huilding is to he devoted to
mlto-relatcd uses and the B-3 zoning district lists auto repair and outside storage as a
conditional use, but such activity can be accommodated by thc processing of the planned
unit development and would need to be handled individually via a conditional use permit.
Regarding the loading area locatcd on the north side of the structure, south ofthc existing
pond, there appears to be ample area for the maneuvering of scrvice vchicles but the
loading area is visible from Chelsea Road to the north. As a condition of PUD approval,
the loading area should be scrcencd from view of the adjaccnt Chelsea Road right-of-
.
5
.
Planning Commission Minutes.. 03/12/02
way. ^ loading area for the future Inixed use building on the southern portion of the site
has not been depicted at this time.
Grittman stated that a variety of plantings have been proposed on site. Generally
speaking, the proposed landscape plan is considered well conceived. To add visual
interest to the proposed buildings however, it is suggested that some plantings be added at
the perimeter of the proposed Lot I building.
Considering the long-term function of Marvin Road (to provide secondary access to
minimal properties), the encroachment of a private driveway is acceptable provided a
specific license to allow such encroachment is issued. As a condition of PUD approval,
the applicant should receive permission tiom nearby property owners that have no other
access regarding the proposed use of Marvin Road.
.
Grittman advised that the building materials proposed comply with ordinance
requirements and Inaterials associated with the multi-use building will be addressed at a
future point. The building height satisfies the maximum 2-story height requirement and
the grading drainage and utility plans submitted should be subject to review and comment
by the City Engineer. Trash handling/recycling locations are proposed on the north side
of the Lot I building and Grittman advised that the City prefers that trash receptacles be
attached to the principal building or stored indoors. Therefore, a condition of PUD
approval shall be that all trash handling and recycling equipment be attached to or stored
within the principal buildings. He also advised that a lighting plan has been submitted
and will be subject to revicw and approval by the Building Official.
Grittman advised that a sign plan had been submitted and as a condition of PUD
approval, it will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the sign
ordinance. He also stated that the outside storage area associated with the auto body
operation is located behind the auto body shop and some distance from Chelsea Road. It
represents a small percentage of the property and makes useable space out of the odd
shaped/remnant portion of the buildable portion of the lot. It will be surrounded by an
opaque fence as required by ordinance. The landscape plan also shows tree plantings
adjacent to the outside storage area.
There was discussion as to why Marvin Road would not be vacated and if this was due to
future development. Grittman advised that there are property owners where this would
eliminate their frontage. It was also stated that there arc no immediate plans for
improvement to Marvin Road. Weinand will be paying the full cost to improve the area
which is to the benefit of area property owners.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand, applicant, stated that they have
considered reversing the building but it does not layout as well. They do have nice
.
6
Plann ing COIn III ission Minutes - 03112/02
.
showroonl space and stated that it was critical that there be exposure to Chelsea Road. lIe
also advised that Gould Chevrolet running parallel to the back of this proposed building
would be better. Weinand advised that there is an odd shape to the property and they did
not want to expose the storage area to Chelsea Road and they still need to maintain
easements. He also stated that they spent a fair amount of time with people directly
affected by the plan and that they will do additional landscaping which will benefit them
as well. lie noted that they arc trying to follow standards that the car dealerships have
chosen, and to compliment as well. He advised their reason for pushing the project
forward with concept and development stage is due to the large size of the project and
also getting their tenants in on a timely manner. especially the auto body due to their
equipment, etc., advising that this is a new body shop. Weinand stated the two major
businesses that this project affects are Ford and the Health Club, and that they were in
favor of the project as it would be cleaning up Marvin Road and would also give the
Health Club additional parking. Weinand advised that there is an agreement with them
and have written up licensing to that etfect.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Smith asked if stail was in agreement with the
proposed screening of the oLltside storage and Grittman stated they did not pick that up at
first review but it seems to be favorable; also stating possibility of a block wall along the
back of the pond area.. Weinand stated it was possible and that they may have to cut
down a portion of Marvin Road. They questioned Weinand regarding his input on the
request for two- way traflic versus the one-way initially proposed and he stated they will
work with staff to change that. He stated that their flxus was to have two- way traffic to
the 111iddle which would also help Olson Electric with their entrance. They also felt their
parking was getting a little tight, but would work with that as well.
frie added that item G of the conditions should be removed from the list of conditions
requested in the report, and to replace it with "proper screening and landscaping of outside
storage". Dragsten asked if the applicant had reviewed all of the conditions and Weinand
stated they had and they are all workable. Dragstcn asked Grittman about item one and
Grittman advised that this was due to encroachments to the righh}f- way. Popilek asked
about sufficient parking and Grittman stated it appears to be adequate, they do have
potential for additional tenants and may need more parking at that time. No issues with
setbacks due to the PU D.
ROY POPILEK MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
BASED ON THE fINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITlI 'llIE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LAND USES IN
THE AREA, SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND
.
7
.
g.
h.
l.
. .1.
k.
I.
Plal1l1il1g COl11missiOI1 Minutes - 03112/02
IS CONSISTENT WIllI THE (TrY'S USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. A two-way circulation route be provided in the parking area west or the Lot 1
building.
b. Plantings be added at the perimeter of the proposed Lot 1 building.
c. Cross parking and access easements are establ ished and recorded with Lot 1,
block 1 to servc future Outlot 13 development.
d. All off-street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied including
parking associated with future development upon Outlot B.
e. Trash handling and recycling equipment shall be stored within or attached to the
principal buildings.
r. Site lighting shall bc subject to revicw and approval by the Building Official who
will certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting
plan. Sueh certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being
issued.
Outside storage at the location identified shall be allowed with proper landscaping
and screening.
Applicable signagc requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied.
A license is issued to allow the encroachment of an off street parking area within
the Marvin Road right-of-way.
The City Engineer provide comment and reeommendation in regard to aecess,
grading, drainage and utility issues.
Bui lding area summaries for Lot 1 provided on the site plan are revised to be
consi stent.
The applicant receive permission from nearby property owners regarding the
proposcd use of Marvin Road. This permission to come from those propel1y
owners that have propcrty that has access only from Marvin Road.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Public I-lcarin!2:: Consideration of a request f()r concept stage planned unit development
for Otter Creek Crossings Business Park. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC/John Chadwick
and Jim Bowers.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, adviscd that Otter Creck LLC is seeking approval of a
concept stage pun for a 185 acre "business park" project in thc West Chelsca Road area
betwcen 90lh Strcet and County Road 39. The area has a large amount of frontage along
1-94, and would include the platting and construction or Chelsea Road. The primary land
uses in the project are intcnded to be industrial in nature, although a broad range of
.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - 03!12/02
.
commercial uses are also proposed. To accommodate the mist or uscs in the district, a
rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District will be necessary. This concept review
is the first step in that process. The City Engineer is working on a design ror Chelsea
Road that would provide access to the development. The individual site layouts will be
addressed as potential tenant needs arc identified.
The applicant identified three potential suhdistricts that the PUD zoning would apply to.
The first is between Chelsea Road and 1-94, called "Area A" in the concept narrative
which would use I-IA as its base zoning district, but would add a range of commercial
uses. In addition, this area would require building materials that are more indicative of
contemporary commercial and higher-end industrial parks by prohibiting exposed metal
finish buildings.
.
With regard to the land uses, planning staff believes that the addition of certain
commercial uses could he compatible in this area. Ilowever, the City should he aware of
potential competitive conflicts with other commercial property such as the Highway 25
corridor which has a substantial supply of commercial land that has been identilied for
future development based on its proximity to residential customers and highway access.
Freeway exposure typically serves a different clientele. Grittman advised specific uses,
some or which proposed fl.)r the concept plan would appear to create potential conflicts
with other competitive locations.
Grittman adviscd that the I-I A District allows outdoor storage by conditional use permit.
Because the intent of this area is for high visibility (presumably with high site acquisition
and development costs), planning staff recommended that outdoor storage not be allowed
in this area.
The second tier of development I ies south of Chelsea Road, designated as "Area B".
Within this area, the applicant fl)llows the I-I A District uses, and proposed to add
trucking and truck service, concrete/asphalt plant and concrete products, and automobile
assembly and major repair. Grittman stated that the additions to the I-I A District seem to
be out of character with the remainder of the district. Automobile assembly and repair
would be allowed if it were an indoor activity, and outdoor storage would occur by the
issuance of a spccific permit. Because this is a PUD District, the City would issue a PUD
permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit.
The south portion of thc project area is delineated as "Area C". This area is hclcl out by
the developers due to its proximity to residential uses farther to the sOllth, and the timing
of clevelopment. 'rhe applicant states that they preteI' to wait until Areas 11 and C have
had a chance to develop prior to committing to a specific use or development scheme in
.
9
.
Planning COllllnission Minutes - 03/12/02
this area. Area C should he platted as an outlot and the pun development contract
should reflect this intent in order to preclude inconsistent development.
Grittman advised the procedure that the City would follow regarding the stages of the
planned unit development process.
Chair Frie asked Herbst if this particular area might be IT-zoned due to its close proximity
to the golf course and llerbst stated it would not be zoned r(Jr heavy industrial and that it
is approximately 400 to 500 feet from the freeway as well. O'Neill stated that the
Planning Commission and City Council discussed this area in September and at that timc
the consensus was that the whole area would be light industrial, possibly be some retail,
but more warehouse. Since that time the Developer has come back with a PUD design
which appears to he consistent with discussions from that meeting.
.
Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta, representative f(Jr Otter Creek
Business Park, provided additional infi:)n11ation to the Planning Commission, including a
site plan. lIe stated that they have had a great amount of discussion with staff regarding
this project and stated flexibility is the key with such a large project. HE stated the
proposed roadway al ignment is to accommodate the mix of uses such as large users and
small users. Uses in "Area A" were a continuation of the general character along Chelsea
Road. with a smooth transition. l1ilotta also stated that the uses listed by staff that were
not recommended would not be a problem, other than the medical and dental uses as he
thought that currently they are a permitted use in the [-1 A district.
Bilotta also stated that the "Area B" uses came from discussions with staff and they are
not proposing more heavy users, but that this would be an area providing for relocation
[(n' husinesses not visible from the Highway. [t was noted that with the PUD proccss,
staff could add conditions for future uses. They are looking at a self-contained permanent
structure that looks likc a manufacturcr using masonry, nothing tcmporary or metal. He
also advised that there is nothing proposed for "Area C" at this timc due to thc size of the
project, and if this is a sensitivc use it should be looked into at that point in time and
would bc handlcd sensitively.
Frie asked the applicant ifthcy had looked ahcad at possible strcss of traffic coming out
onto County Road 39 and O'Neill advised that they have becn working with thc County
on this issue, advising that the road will hc upgradcd. Herbst stated that the acccss to 1-94
is also key to industries. Grittman stated that Chelsea Road would intercept traffic from
Co. Rd 39 to the freeway as wcll.
0' Neill stated that they arc eager to protect industrial land and this area has been
designatcd as Industrial. The IDC has bccn looking at this property as well and has
.
10
Planning COll1mission Minutes - 03/12/02
.
decided that a high level of commercial would he a good use as well and they were
supportive of this development whether industrial or a mix. Koropehak agreed with that
statement, however the I DC is waiting for the Comp Plan open house date due to
deadlines that they need to meet. Frie asked if the pun is approved, what leverage does
staff have at deciding the level of uses which arc acceptable. Cirittman stated that on the
front end statfwold need to decide what uses are acceptable and that the PUD would be
reviewed for each husiness. Grittman stated that was the initial intent and it is important
to protect the I [ighway 25 corridor commercial area, and that a mix of uses was better at a
lower threshold.
A resident at 3240 County Rd 39 NE addressed the Planning Commission stating he was
supportive of getting an industrial area in at that location, hut asked about weight
restrictions on that road and Herbst advised it was possibly 8 or 9 ton, but could not
verify this as it is a County Road. The resident also added that he was concerned with
heavy traffic on Country Road 39 from Chelsea Road to the bridge, and would the
County Road have to be widened for industrial traffic. He was also concerned with safety
due to possihle industrial traffic. Grittman stated that he was not awarc of any plans to
widen that road. Hc did state that the City's transportation plan is to complete this link to
Chelsea Road, and then it would extend further out to the west which would carry the
traffic down to the freeway on the south side, creating less pressure to widen Co. Rd 39.
.
Another resident stated his concern with safety on Co. Rd. 39 as well and suggested
possible addition of bypass lanes as he thought this was previously proposed. He also
questioned whether the access could be moved further to the west under the power lincs,
but it was advised that this was not the applicant's property. O'Neill stated that staff will
talk to the County Engineer and hring thesc commcnts to thcm, advising that this is not
the first time the concern has come before them. They also added that this lllay not have
an affect on this proposed PUO.
Another resident in this area asked if there would he water and sewer insta]]ed and it was
adviscd that at this time the Comp Plan is calling for residential zoning to the south He
also asked if he wanted to develop his land could he do so, and O'Neill stated that the
current plan calls for development to occur over time in increments, hut it many be
possible in a few ycars.
Chair Fric then closed the public hearing. Popilek asked that if in the proposed "Area A"
would it be advisahle to have grocery stores, medical and dental offices, etc., would that
help with the traffic on Hwy 25. Grittman stated that commercial traffic would use Hwy
25 anyway and they are trying to keep that area more compact.
.
] I
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
"rilE OTTl.:R CREEK BUSINESS PARK CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT
D[~VELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING '1"1 'AT TilE CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY'S COMPREIII.:NSIVE LAND USE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
8.
Public Ilearing: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
senior housing as a conditional use in a PS, Public - Semi Public, zoning district.
Applicant: City Staff
JcffCrNeill provided the report. Planning Commission is asked to consider adding
Senior )-Iousing as a conditional use in a Public/Semi Public District as a housekeeping
measure as it has been discovered that this use is not identified in the PIS District even
though we have allowed Senior Housing in this district (St. Benedicts). It is the view of
the City Planner that Senior/Congregate care housing was originally intended to be
permitted in the PIS District, however it was inadvertently left: out when the original
ordinance was prepared.
O'Neill listed suggested conditions to be included in the ordinance relating to
establishment of scnior housing as a conditional usc in the PS District:
. I.
2.
.,
-) .
4.
Setbacks for Scnior I lousing rclated structures should meet the minimum standard
I<Jr the district, or equal the height of the building, whichever is greater.
The parking lot nlUst have direct access from a minor collector or collector road.
Underground parking must be provided at a rate of 3/4 spaces per unit.
The development must be contained on an independent parcel. 30% of the parcel
must be preserved in green space.
Chair Frie opened the publie hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was then
closed. Frie asked ifSt. Henedicts was aware of the conditions and are they met, and
O'Neill stated that he feels they arc for the most part. Gritttnan added that it is included
in their PUD, and that sinee it is a PUD it would not be classified as nonconforming.
Herbst asked about Mississippi Shores but it was noted that this is in a different district
and did not apply. Dragsten asked about the condition listed stating "Underground
parking must be provided at a rate of 3/4 spaces per unit". O'Neill advised that
'.underground parking" was included due to the P-S districts being close to a residential
area and stated the City was trying to encourage that.
.
12
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
A MOTION WAS MADE HY ROHHIE SMITll'rO ADD SENIOR HOUSING AND
ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS TO TIlE LIST Or- CONDITIONAL USES IN THE PIS
DISTRICT. MOTION BASI':!) ON TIlL': FINDING TI-IATESTABLJSHMENT OF
THIS USE AND ASSOCIATED CONnrrrONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER AND
NEIGIIHORHOODS ADJACENT TO PIS DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting. amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance relatin!2: to sin!2:le family residential lot and development standards. Applicant:
City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising the modifications which he summarized
and provided to the commissioners. Attached to the report were three draft: districts for
the R-L R-IA, and R-2A zoning districts. Grittman stated that they had been modified to
reflect the discussion at the February public hearing, including increasing garage size to
480 square feet, changing the R-l district's required square footage to 1,050 sq. fL and
adding language to require certain facade treatments in the R-l district.
One other change related to finished square f()otage for rambler-style units, which
provided for a minimum of 1,400 sq. ft. of finished space in such units, assuming a full
basement or slab construction. The discussion at the previous Planning Commission
meeting focused on 1,200 sq. ft. Staff felt that a larger size should be considered f()r
several reasons. First. ramblers without walk-out basements do not lend themselves to
creating more livable tinished space so a larger minimum size seemed warranted.
Second, 1,200 sq. ft. would be the absolute minimum house size for a three bedroom
home. Grittman advised that one of the objecti ves of this project had been to create
houses that families could grow into.
Third, a 1,400 sq. ft. finished rambler should cost out at about the same as a 2,000
sq. ft./I,050 sq. ft. split level. so the ordinance would not be building in a signiticant cost-
related hias for one style of housing over thc other.
Chair hie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was
closed. Jeff O'Neill provided comments from developer Tony Emmerich, although he
did state that the 1,050 sq. 1l. minimum was not out of line, but stating that he preferred to
leave it at 960 sq. tt. and was hoping the City Council would allow him to continue under
the former standards that they started with in the Groveland Addition. Frie asked if the
conditions that Groveland's plat was developed under be adjusted and O'Neill stated that
is a question fc)r the Planning Commission to dctermine, stating it was their original
intent hut it is up to them whcther they want to requirc that. Popilek and Frie stated they
did not feci that would be fair to the developer. Grittman stated that the Planning
13
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
.
Commission seems to bc confusing the two issucs as there currently arc not standards in
place f()r theR-1 district. He also adviscd that this would be similar to the garage
standards added last year. Popilek again disagrced and stated he felt they owe this much
to the contractors to allow them to continue with the standards that were in place at the
tinle they applied.
Herbst stated that these contractors/developers were not in attendance at the first public
hearing when this issue was discussed and wondered why they had not attended to state
their concerns. Popi lek and Frie felt that this should be applied to all new houscs, not
houses that have already begun the building process. It was stated however, that when
ordinances were put in place regarding the garages, all new permit applications had to
conform to the new standard. Grittman advised that this issue has been discussed for
several months now and should be no surprise to builders/developers. frie stated that
timing was a concern to him and also who would be affected by it.
O'Neill stated that part of the problem would be how to kcep track of who came in when,
who abides by the new standards and who does not, stating this to be very difficult fcn
staff. lie also stated he did not feel it was unreasonable or unfair as developments that
were proposed for higher end homes came in with less than what they had proposed, and
that is what brought this issue into motion.
.
frie advised that he is in favor of the standards, as well as most people he has spoken to,
but that his concern is who it affects. Herbst added that the people purchasing homes in
certain neighborhoods where they are paying more money for their homes do not expect
the bui Ider to come in after the fact with lower standard hornes. Smith added that he had
a question on rmnbler square footages and Grittman again c1ariiied, that the objective was
to find a balancing point fc)r opportunity for expanding hornes. Dragsten asked about
addressing f~lCades in the R-l district where they currently do not apply and it was noted
that the Planning Commission could add them to this district if they chose to.
Griuman also clarified the standard for garages on 45 sq. ft. lots that no portion of the
garage could be in front of the housc. He added that ifbuilding on a 45 sq. f1. lot they
would be forced to put parking/alley in the back. Dragsten Jelt the standard should be 12
feet, although Grittman advised that this only applies in the proposed R-2A district.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR THE R-I" R-I A, AND R~2A ZONING
DISTRICTS, AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REl,ATING TO PLAT
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. ROY POPILEK SECONDED TI IE MOTION.
.
There was further discussion by Frie that he docs support the ordinance but he questions
the reasoning for the ordinance amendments as stated in the statT report where it states
14
.
.
.
Planning C'ommissiOIl Minutes - 03/12/02
that the proposed standards would help address some of the issues related to
neighborhood quality. as well as the statement regarding populations and their affect on
school enrollment. O'Neill added that the comments regarding school population was
based on anecdotal evidence and he did agree that statistics should be prepared that either
verify or refute the anecdotal information.
There was fllrther discussion hy Dragsten stating again that he would like the standard for
garages to be extended to 12 feet in front of the house and included in the R-I and R-IA
districts as well. Also to include in the motion that this does not apply to existing plats
wherc lots are already in and thc effective date to be August] , 2002 due to the Ilnding
that thcre arc potential home owners that would be unable to huild according to these
standards. Smith asked for clarification from Dragsten and he stated that he felt they
must have the same rules apply in all districts. Grittman clarified that his standard gives
the huilder tlexibility to do something other. Herbst stated he did not agree with the
August I date.
ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED TilE MOTION TO STATE TIIAT TIIESE
STANDARDS DO NOT APPL Y TO EXISTING PLATS AND THE EFFECTIVE
DATE TO BE AUGUST 1,2002 WITH THE FINDING THAT THERE ARE
POTENTIAL IIOME OWNERS THAI" IIA VE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE "rHA T
WOULD BE UNABLE TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THESE STANDARDS.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. AMENDMENT PREVAILS.
MOTION CARRIED IJNANIMOUSL Y.
10.
Consideration of adoption of a resolution stating that the Ilans Ilagen/Front Street project
is consistent with thc comprehensive plan of the City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman advised that Hans Hagen Homes will he requesting a conditional use
permit to allow the construction of a ten unit townhouse project along Front Street,
hetween Walnut and Locust. Prior to submittal of the application, Ilans Hagen would
like feedback on the most recent design. The project would consist of single level
residential units f~ICing the Mississippi River, with rear-loaded garagcs along a private
alley. The units are locatcd ncar Front Street and the City's objective has been to
encourage an lIrhan environment, both in site planning and architecture. The site is
supported hy the adjacent Bridge Park and has been targeted by the City's HRA as a
prime location for a part of its "North Anchor" rcdevelopment.
Grittman advised that in the CCD zoning district, residential units arc permitted uses on
the second levcl of buildings, and may occupy thc ground levcl by conditional use permit.
Staff has raised concern in relation to the project based on the nature of the proposed
market and the architectural demands relating to the residents. At one point in the
development of the dcsign concept the applicant had worked on two-story buildings with
15
Planning COl1ll1lission Minutes - 03112/02
.
a strong vertical appearance and rclationship to the street. These units would likely have
been marketed to young professionals or families. However, the applicant has stated that
based on market research, the only realistic market for units of this type is in the "empty
nester" category. I tome buyers in this market demand single level units to eliminate
stairs.
The change from two to one-story buildings has resulted in a dramatic impact on the
urban look of the project and would change the social dynamics of the neighborhood.
Staff' has asked the appl icant to work on the architecture of the buildings in an etTort to
create buildings that are noticeably distinguishable from suburban townhouse projects.
Cirittman added that in this district the ordinance states a minimum height of 15 feet for
all buildings n the district, the intent bcing to accomplish an urban look to all areas within
the CCD. The applicant's design changes should address this standard.
.
Grittman advised that the project otherwise appears to be consistent with the Downtown
Revitalization Plan, the future land uses in the North Anchor area, and the neighborhood.
One site planing issue relates to the location of Front Street, which will be reconstructed
as part of this project. Staff hand encouraged the applicant to consider small ii'ont yard
spaces and relate the buildings to the street, including the potential for placing the
buildings very near the street and sidcwalk areas. The proposed design appears to
rclocate Front Street toward the river in an effort to allow deeper blli Iding footprints
(resulting from the change to single levclllnits), and to accommodate grading along the
rear propcrty line. However, there is some concern that the location of f7ront Street may
have pushed too br toward the river, resulting in some prohlematic construction issues.
These issucs should be resolved with the City Engineer prior to final approval.
This project is also in the Wild and Secnic River area and subject to Shorcland
regulations. Public Works has found that a considerable amount of trees would have to
be rcmovcd, encroaching into the park area, and Wild and Scenic issucs in regard to
relocating Front Street toward the river.
I t was noted that due to the project's location to the parks and ri vel', staff stated they
cnvisioncd this area for both hunilies and empty nesters. I-Ierbst stated that he was under
the assumption that they were going to vacate that street at one time, and also asked if the
City could hook up to the sidewalk and have all parking in the rear. Grittman statcd that
there is a plan ft)r a sidewalk and also it was the intent of statT to keep the street to
provide access to the public for parks.
Jon Peterson, representative for I-Ians Hagen, addressed the Planning Commission stating
that there would be ten 1,660 sq. ft. units on the sitc and advised that I rans Hagen builds
upscale townhomes, stating in their market study they found the two-story family units do
not meet the market demands at this time as the demand is for one Icvel. He estimated
.
16
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
that the entry \eve I price for a unit would be above $200,000, adding that they had a
concern with the two-story driving the eosts up higher. He advised the ranges for the
units they built in St. Michael as well.
Dragsten stated that when they met with the North Anchor committee it was determined
that this area would remain as parkland. Koropchak stated that it was one of the initial
ideas, but that they did not follow through mainly duc to the expense of adding more
property two blocks further down. She also advised that the I IRA was anticipating that
some sort of dcvelopment will go in that area and elaborated that they had spoken to
propcrty owners and other city commissions as well in regard to the plan by I lans Hagen.
She stated that the HRA is waiting until their April meeting to enter into a contract with
Ilans Ilagen, after Planning Commission has reviewed. She also advised of the HRA's
time frame.
Richard Carlson eommented that there is a development of both family and empty nesters
near thc golf course that was well received and so he disagrees with the market analysis
by llans Hagen. Peterson stated the demand is 10 to 1 from a marketing standpoint fl.)!"
onc level versus two. He stated the change occurred when they presented the two story
conccpt to their marketing department and got negative feedback. Carlson staled he felt
differently with sites on the river that they would prefer two story for the view.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF
TilE DESIGN CONCEPTS fOR A 10 UNIT TOWN IIOME PROJECT WrTH THE
CONDlTlON TllAT THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUI':ST MODIFIES TIlE
ARCHITECTURE TO MEET THE MINIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND
THAT TIlE STREET' RECONSTRUCTION ISSUES ARE R.ESOL VEn TO TilE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH RlCllARD CARLSON VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
11.
Consideration to adoot a resolution fimlinl.! that a modification to tbe Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. ] and the TIF Plan for TIF
District No. 1-29 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of
the citv.
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, provided the stafT report stating that
the Planning Commission is asked to adopt a resolution stating it finds the proposcd TIF
District No. 1-29 Plan conforms with the comprehensive plan of the city.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-29 is being established to assist the developer (h'ont Porch
Associates) with land acquisition for the development of 26 townhouse units. Howevcr,
the district will consists of 18 townhouse units. Since a majority of the project area
17
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
included raw land and only one parcel consisted of substandard improvements, a Housing
District was created and not a Redevelopment District.
It was noted that this item is not intended to approve the design changes. O'Neill added
that staIr did have a productive meeting with Cyr earlier in the day which addressed those
concerns. The Council will hold a public hcaring and approve the TlF Plan on March 25,
2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADOP'f A RESOLUTION FINDING
THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR 'fIF
DISTRICT NO. 1-29 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION
CONTINGENT ON DEVELOPER OBTAINING DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD
APPROVAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANlMOUSIS.
12.
Consideration of a request f()r a 5' variance to the 10' side yard setback
requirement for a retaininl.! wall that exeecds 8' in height. Applicant: Gould Bros.
Chevrolct/John Michaelis
Jeff O'Neill advised that initially the building was to be moved 5 fect but that there
has been sonle discussion that this may not occur now. O'Neill stated that this
item should be continued to the next meeting if it was determined that a variance was still
needed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
IIEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT
V ARIANCE TO TilE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR
A RETAINING WALL THAT EXCEEDS 8 FEET IN HEIGHT TO THE APRIL
2,2002 MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Consideration of changing the November 5, 2002 meetinl! date to November 12,
2002, due to elections.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI I TO CHANGE THE
NOVEMBER 5, 2002 MEETING DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
NOVEMBER 12,2002, DUE TO ELECTIONS. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18
Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02
.
14.
Fred Patch advised that in1999 the City acted to have Ken's Service Station clean up his
site and it took until approximately 200 I. Also noted was that the business was allowed
to havc vehicles stored on the property that were being worked on, as well as allowing
them to park their service vehicles on the site.
O'Neill advised that when there is new development there is the hope that this area will
be redeveloped which would take care of the problem. It was discussed that this site is
really a llless and there had been previous complaints from neighbors regarding this site,
but none recently. Patch stated that the Planning Commission could advise staff to
address this again. Frie added that possibly discussing this site with SUpl. Benedetto in
regard to a possible safety concern.
148. Chair Frie advised that he had become aware of a potential home buyer in Monticello
who had been waiting fix an answer fi-om City staff regarding potential assessments on
the Broadway improvement project prior to signing a purchase agreement, who possibly
lost the opportunity to purchase this home due to not getting an answer back ii'om staff in
a timely manner.
O'Neill stated that there is not a set time frame for statTto return phone calls but that it
was more a courtesy call. O'Neill added that he was aware of this call and that it had
come in on an afternoon that he was out of the office and when he got the message he
. forwarded it on to John Simola in the Public Works Dept. to answer.
14C'. Update regarding the proposed Miclke proieet.
O'Neill stated that this project was really going back and forth, and he had heard that
Mielke's plan was changing to a strip center, hut then went back to the original proposed
PlJ\). At this time the final plat has not been signed. It was discussed that the Planning
Commission and City Council had been asked hy Mielke to rush the project so that he
could get the project going, and they have not heard from him since then. It was noted
that there were assessment agreements signed so that is not a cost concern of the City.
15. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH 'TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
10:40 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
~~
.
19