Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-07-2002 . . . Members: S tafT: MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICI'~LL() PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - May 7, 2002 7:00 P.M. Dick Frie. Robbie Smith. Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Jeff O'NeilL John Glomski and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. Chair [<rie called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm and declared a quorum. Chair Frie advised that Roy Popilek would be excused at 8 pm due to prior commitments. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held April 2. 2002. " .J. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF TIlE APRIL 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'llNG. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. . Dick VanAllen, IDC representative, wished to add discussion to item 13 on the agenda - so noted. . Resident on Eagle Court in the Klein Farms Estate 21d Addition had concerns with landscaping in their development and approached the Planning Commission for answers. The resident questioned if changes to the landscaping plans were approved by the Planning Commission and Grittman advised that typically they are, but some are considered minor and are approved by staff. Resident felt there were major changes and he had copies of the landscape plans with him. Grittlnan advised he should meet with Fred Patch, Building OfficiaL and resident stated he had done so but was not satisfied with answers. O'Neill advised the resident that this would not be the appropriate time to discuss this matter due to the length of the agenda. Herbst stated that he felt the Planning Commission should take a look at it this evening due to the time of the season. O'Neill stated that he is aware of this problem with the developer, Eagle Crest, -1- . . . and that he felt this would be too lengthy a discussion. O'Neill advised that there is a question on the actual approved landscape plan and what actually has been put in. Chair Frie asked the resident to provide a copy of the approved plan to staff to review and if it is not in compliance, could staff get this to the Planning Commission and/or Ilerbst. and asked that it be put on the next City Council agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of concept stage planned unit development allowin~ a sinl.',1c t~Hnily residential development in the R-3 zonilW. district. Applicant: Central Minnesota Housing Partnership and the City of Monticello Jeff CYNeill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the report stating this is the first housing project the City is attempting to establish and they are working with CMIIP. The location is 61h Street and Minnesota St. O'Neill provided a brief description of the proposal, noting that they do not have an exact design but are working on that. Access will be from behind the homes and he provided setbacks and approximate selling prices. O'Neill also advised that they will be looking at TIF assistance and a reduction in fees which would allow them to buy and develop the property. Building in significant landscaping and architectural design that will add quality and character, aflcmlable with a quality look. Asking City Council to consider approval of the concept PUD and there will be an opportunity at upcoming meetings to look at landscaping and building plans in more detail. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dick VanAllen, 6448 River Mill Drive, asked about setbacks and how they compare with standard setbacks on eomparative housing. O"Neill advised that it depends on the standard. For this type of development with an urban feel, 20' setbacks are appropriate. This development is attempting to make good use of the land and statT feels the setbacks are ample. O'Neill added that by urban standards they are ample, by suburban they are tight. Hearing no further cOlmncnts, the public hearing was closed. There was further discussion regarding density, setbacks, as well as parking for residents and visitors. O'Neill staled that they would be using Minnesota and 61h Street roadways for visitor parking. adding that the roadway is quite widc and provides ample space. Also discussed zoning standards 1'01' R~2A and Grittman stated that in regard to density it is consistent but not in regard to lot size. Due to costs and with a nf package, building dcnsity is neccssary, but the goal is to not do this at thc expcnse of a quality neighborhood. Chair Frie noted his concern with the partnership of the city, CMIIP and Sunny Fresh Foods. Specifically hc askcd about the donation of money toward this project rrom Sunny Fresh Foods and how would they be involved. O'Neill advised that Sunny Fresh has always had interest in the cOl1ununity in that much of their workforce needs housing and this is the type of housing they need. However, money contribution is 2 . . . charitable and bridges a financing gap. but does not give Sunny Fresh any leverage. O'Ncill also stated that this extra money allows for morc landscaping as well. Frie asked Ollie Koropchak how t~lr along the city/HRA is in approving TIF and she advised that the city council has givcn approval and they are just starting to prepare the actual TIF district. Carlson notcd his concern with landscaping and did not feel it was superior. Smith noted there had been no response from any residents or neighbors on this project. A MOTION WAS MAD~': BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE CONCEPT PUD BASED ON THE FINDING TI-IA T THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTEN'r WIT~-:l THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TilE CITY. THE DEVELOPMENT' IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOTRESUL T IN A DEPRECIATION OF ADJOINING LAND VALUES. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Dragsten that density and lot widths should follow the R-2A standards. Chair Frie agreed and asked if this proposal gets us close to those standards, and Grittman stated again that it meets density, but not lot widths. therefore the PUD approach which allows flexibility for a better project. It was noted that this is not an upscale housing project, but rather an affcmiable housing project. It is actually zoned R-3 where the code would allow much higher density such as apartments. After no further discussion, Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public I !caring ~ Consideration of development stage planned unit development and approval ofpreliminarv plat. Armlicant: Hans Hagen Ilomes ./eff CfNei II provided a brief summary noting the plan that was submitted in the agenda packet is very similar to the approved concept plan which consists of 10 units with alley service in the rear f(..1r parking. and that several ideas that were previously proposed have been brought into this plan. S0l11e of the previous discussion included a cross section between the fi'ont of the building and the edge of the wooded area on the river side. The current plan shows about 5' of space missing to make this a nice transition. He added that they did not want to reduce the building size, but that did not work otherwise. The Design Advisory Teanl looked at this item previous to this meeting and one idea they suggested was to pick up additional space by reducing the road width from 28' to 24' and run one-way traffic in that area which gives parking on the building side of Front Street and would pick up enough space. Another option was to run the sidewalk next to the curb. but this reduces the green space. O'Neill added that staff has not received int{))"mation from Patti Fowler of the DNR, although Steve Grittman stated he did speak to her by phone and she did not have everything complete. Roy Popilek asked what would happen if there was negative feedback from the [)NR, but Grittman stated that it is the City's authority to grant variances in that case if necessary, although he did not see this happening. lie feels that the density requirements have been met. -3- . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hans Hagen, applicant, expanded on O'Neill's report providing three proposals f{)J' resolving the setback issue. The first one shows the existing street eenterline which is exactly where street is now. He noted that street width today is 26' and the proposal shows 28' which results in the street being 2' closer to the river whieh provides for two driving lanes of 9' wide and two parking lanes at 7' wide. With the proposed 28' width it provides for 2-way traffie and parking on one side, but causes the sidewalk to be immediately adjacent to the curb. The next proposal shows a 24' wide street which makes them able to achieve the initial goal of 5' space from porch to sidewalk, 5' wide sidewalk and 4' of green space. This plan allows for one- way traffic. Third alternative is to provide a street that is 24' wide, two lanes of traffic, and instead of parking on the street there would be toe~in parking on the north side of the street so traffic to the west would end up with 10 parking stalls. He stated staying this would be staying out of the tree line and is roughly in the area of the old driveway tlw existing house. Again, this gives thcm the ability to aehieve 5' green space, 5' widc sidewalk and 4' of green space to the curb. . O'Neill added that the Parks Commission would want to look at this plan with thc toe-in parking, ancl stated that if the were in favor of that plan they could work under a planned unit development zoning. Steve Grittman askcd if the third option was acceptable, his eoncern would be regarding snow plowing due to angle parking, advising that at staff levcl they discussed the advantagcs and disadvantages of one-way traf1ic and the Inajority felt it was acceptable, but thcrc were some in opposition. Hagen stated he would be comtlll'table with eithcr of the options. Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director, 1':conOlnic Development, asked from an lIRA standpoint, if they chose option 3, who provides the cost for installing parking. lIagen stated he is not sure ofthc cost but that in the initial plan it was proposcd f{)r a 28' street width and actual square footage of the proposed parking space is about the same, or within 2 feet, and also they would be saving blacktop within 200 sq. ft., probably minimal cost of $1,000 to $2,000 range. Koropchak asked if curbing would be moved and it was notcd that curb would all be rcconstructed anyway so that was not a problcnl. . Hcrbst asked about the 10 parking stalls and would they be public or private. 'Iagcn stated public. Tom Moores, resident, asked ifthc City would still be removing snow fronl that street and parking area, under the applicant's first proposal, stating that ifit is only 9' widc, they can't plow and mect a car at same timc. But he did stated that one-way traffic would work with proposal one. O'Neill added that Public Works did question this as well and that they felt it would he good to maintain two-way tranic. O'Neill added that staff was looking at this from a standpoint of parkways and walkways along the river and that Inany times those are one-ways, giving it a park fccl, stating one-way circulation felt like a good alternative. -4- . Doug Snyder, resident, stated that he was given the impression at the last City Council meeting that the city docs not want concrete through to the curb due to safety issues. O'Neill advised that that was one of the reasons why they did not like sidewalks right up to the curb, but that there is quite a difference between traffic on Broadway and traffic on f'ront Street which was the discussion at the council meeting. O'Neill added that traffic volume had an impact due to safety issues. Snyder stated he relt it did not have anything to do with traffic, but with children on bikes and O'Neill noted it was to do with traffic and that was the difference. Dick VanAllen, resident, asked if it presUlnes on-street parking and Hagen stated there would be four parking spaces per unit, two covered and two uncovered. Chair f'rie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion regarding one- way traffic, proposed path north of Front Street as well as the possibility of reducing the width of the sidewalk. Grittl11an advised that reducing the width may make it too narrow and also that the sidewalk created a visual edge and a separation between public and private property. Carlson added that it may be conrusing to change to one-way with Walnut and Locust remaining two~way. Grittman stated the traffic patterns and how they would circulate. Carlson stated that he would f~lVor maintaining road as a two-way, perhaps narrow the sidewalk and move Front Street over to the NE corner approximately 2 ft to compromise. Oragsten prefers the one-way and likes diagonal parking along Front St, also sidewalk could drop back and narrow. Popilek also liked the one-way but not the diagonal parking. . A MUTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE Pl.ANNED UNIT D!.:VELOPMENf INCLUDING THE 24 FOOT STREET WIDTH, ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON FRONT STREET, 5 FOOT SPACE FROM PORCH TO SIDEWALK, 5 FOOT WIDI~ SIDEWALK AND 4 FEET OF GREEN SPACE, AND APPROVE filE ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY PLAT. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE pun IS CONSISTENT WITH TilE CI IARACTER OF TIlE AREA AND CONSISTENT WITII TilE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Richard Carlson voting in opposition. Roy Popilek was excused at 8 pm. 7. Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a reuuest f()l' a conditional use permit allowing a convenience food store in the Ccntral Communitv District. Applicant: Dennis Archer/Domino's Pizza Steve Grittman, NAC provided the report stating that a downtown business owner had written a concern regarding loading/unloading and parking on Broadway, and Grittman felt that with the condition that dclivcry and loading from alley, this would alleviate the concern. . -5- . . . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dennis Archer, applicant, stated that loading and unloading from alleyway is anticipated, but for security reasons, after dark he would prefer front entrance on Broadway for his drivers, not flu semi deliveries. It was noted that the business is moving directly next door. Ilearing no further cOlnlnents, the public hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADI.: BY ROBBII.: SMITII TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP. BASED ON THE FINDING 'rIlAT TilE CIIANGES TO TRAFFIC AND DELIVERY PATTERNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH TIlE INTENT OF THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN AND THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT, WITH 'THE CONDITION THAT SEMI DELIVERIES TAKE PLACE IN THE ALLEYWA Y AND DELIVERY TO THE PUBLIC TAKE PLACE ON BROADWAY ENTRANCE AFTER 8 PM. There was further discussion on safety issues with most downtown businesses closing at 5 pm and the fact that it gets dark before 8 pm. CHAI R FRIE AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT DELIVERIES TO TIII-': PUBLIC TAKE PLACE ON BROADWAY AFTER 6 PM. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request f()r a conditional use permit for concept sta~e planned unit development allowing. a residential development. Applicant: Bru~geman Homes Steve Orittman provided the report. Chair Frie asked if the Planning Conunission had the opportunity to consider the location of the eastern boundary I ine, and if so, does the eastern boundary line of the MOAA include this property and the Jensen property. Grittman stated the MOAA boundary was further cast but it does include the property questioned. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Clair, MFRA, provided background stating that the core of the 94 acres i ncl udes wetlands, also trayersed by UP easements that run cast and west, as well as a Northern Gas line easement. Gair advised that this was the reasoning behind the proposed site plan. The central portion of the land is really the hub and would be surrounded by the development of properties, maintaining the two existing homes. The northeast corner would be park land, below would be one level twin homes, then south of that would be the attached R unit two-story townhomcs, and 33 percent is open space. Gair advised that the greatest benefit is that the master concept designs the three neighborhoods creating individual identity; landscape and building design is taken care of in the detailed design. Gair also advised of MnDOT's options regarding impact on either of the two options. They were advised that MnDOT will inf(mn them of their plan yet in 2002; also stated -6- . that acquisition of ROW would occur in 2004, and in 2006 they would begin eonslruction. Sanitary sewer study is complete, bUl they arc waiting f(n WSB & Associates to complete lhe waler supply study. Chair Frie stated that a conccrn of his is the issue with MnDCH and how can this project move this forward without MnDOrs decision. It was noted that thc property aHected by MnDOT lies hetwcen [-94, and includes 6 acres of woods. O'Nci11 advised thal it is zoned undcr A-O and re-zoning has to bc takcn up with the MCMA, as it is still in thc 'I'ownship. Frie qucstioned another property and who was preventing the sale il and Grittman stated that no one probably is, but that the owner may want to know what is going to happen with the land before selling. O'Neill advised of the proeess the land owner would need to go through, but that the eity has not yet seen an applieation. City staff has no authority to interfere with the sale and MnDOT cannot stop the process either. O'Neill noted that the appIicanl may be taking a risk in proceeding with this plan, but that this may get MnDOT to come up with a decision. Gair also stated that they have a pretty good understanding of the timing and with that they have begun the planning. . Tom Moores, resident who owns property in the Township, asked if this particular site was in the city or township and it was advised that it has not been annexed yet and that the standard procedure is lo review this prior to annexalion. Moorcs also asked iflhe township would have reprcscntation in this matter and (jrittman stated that the eily provides a concept plan to thc township and if it is successful with annexation, this givcs lhe township a picturc of what is being proposed prior to annexing. They still nced to go through annexation process and then back to city counci I f()r approval. Moores also asked about upscale housing in this area as he was under the impression that is what the city had hoped for, yct the developer is proposing twin homes and townhomes in an area where they have already started upscale housing. O'Neill staled that the city is trying to encourage upscale housing but also does not exclude affordahle housing, and that thc dcvcloper is trying to use density as a tool to add quality to thc project. not using it as a tool to put in less expensive homes. It is still up to the planning commission lo decide if this project is superior enough for a PUD. Moores also noted that current streets aren't built to accommoclatcincreascd traffic, and J-lcrbst added that this was a concern of his as well. . Ilcrbst also asked about the f()l'mula lo figure dcnsity when wellancls arc involved and Grittman advised that he did exclude the wetland when figuring densities. (jair advised the SaIllC. Moores stated that his figures don't match up wilh staff's and he was also concerned with the developer putting the parkland were the power lines and gas Jines are. O'Ncill added that these areas are not included in park land area. (jail' clarified lhat the area cncUlllbered f(n wetlands, gas lines and power lines nets an acreage of 70.14 and - 7- . density for this eoncept plan, of2Rl gives them 4 units per acre. Gail' stated that this is concept only and that they are asking for feedback. Chair Frie asked Gair if the applicant was willing to proratc dollars versus dedicated areas in regard to parkland and hc statcd yes. Moorcs then askcd about sewer and water capacity and stated in his rescarch with the city hc was told there would bc a problenl and the city would have to IT-do sorne of the sanitary sewer lines. Gail' stated that is corrcct. although the water supply has not yet been determined. There are improvements that need to bc made and they estimated $1200 per acre. O'Neill added that this portion of the projcct drains to Ditch 33 and there is the ability to shift the site away hom there as well. Moores askcd fiJr a price range and Gail' introduced Greg Schlink, Bruggeman Homes, who would stated approximately $170,000 and they all would be owncr oeeupied. Frie added that the new standards would be in efTect with this development. Dick VanAllen, 6448 River Mill Drive, askcd Gail' about f~mlily size per unit average, and it was stated the singlebmily detaehed would generate 3.1 which is consistent with Wright Co. VanAllen asked about the noise separation/buffer and Gail' stated there will heavy landscaping, benning, or fencing, something that would alleviate noise and be visually appealing. . Keith Ilomcs. rcsident on 9yh Strcet. asked about Haug and Gillard bcing thc only two roads in and out. he is concerned with traffic as it is already heavy on 951h Street. Concerns were noted. Chair Fric then c10scd thc public hearing. There was further discussion on the MnDOT issue as well as the possibility of the developer working with the DNR to create a more enhanced wetland, stating this would be a recommcndation of the planning commission. Gail' advised that there are ways to accomplish this but they have not gotten to that point yet. Chair Frie askcd fronl standpoint of annexation, whcre does this proposal stand as far as being procedural and corrcct regarding state statutes, ctc. O'Ncill stated that they are following thc policy ofthc city regarding annexation and that the city believes following state statutes is correct. In thc meantime the city can review this plan as well as the land use plan. Under either annexation procedurc, this land would be eligible fiJr annexation and staff is planning f()\' that. Also, assuming that state statutes are to be followed, this land would not be cligible for annexation until a preliminary plan is submitted. . There was further discussion regarding township roads and Grittman advised that maintenance. etc. would be handled through an agreement with township and city. Herbst questioned maybe to table action at this time due to MnDOT, but it was stated that this is a decision or the applicant and Gair added that what they would like from the planning commission is a sense as to how reasonable/rationale this concept looks and that -8- . . . they will continue to work with stafT and MnDOT. O'Neill added that concept approval does not mean that the planning commission is obligated to approve the next phase, but that it is important to let the developer know what the city is expecting. Carlson added that perhaps the proposed 8-plexcs could be used as a buffer. The planning commission advised that they would recommend bufTering of the property, park land to be approved by the Parks Commission as well. township roads be studicd, completion of the infrastructure bc done, enhancemcnts to the wetlands be made. and that the devclopcr work with MnDOT. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TilE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE BRUGOr.:MAN HOMES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WITII COMMENTS LISTED ABOVE, AS WELL AS ANNEXATION APPROV AI" BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT' WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND IS CONSIDERED TO BE READY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearini! - Consideration of a request for a zonini! map amcndrnent re-zoning fi'on1 Agriculture - ()})cn Snace to Residential~ Consideration of a rccwest fl.)!' conccnt and development stage planned unit devclopment allowing sini!le familv rcsidential homes and Consideration of a preliminarv plat for the Ficlds of Hillside Ilurst. Applicant: John Arkell/Carriage Homcs Steve Grittman provided the staff report. Grittman reviewed the conncction to 85111 Street at the southwest corner of this project. ponding, connection to the north through the proposcd Maplewood Development, and Park Dedication. He added accommodating son1e open space areas at the edges. as well as corner spaces, and woodlands, stating this would be a requiremcnt in the landscape plans. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Gary Nordlocken, township resident. asked how large the holding pond would be and what is its capacity. Grittman stated he believed that the water that is intended to "sit" in the pond is approx. 4 feel, adding that possibly in May there would be another 3 to 4 feet in depth that would then drain back. There is an outlet. O'Neill added that the city engineer is wcll aware of the watcr drainage in that area and will handle that, advising that the city engineer would be at the May 13 city council meeting to discuss as well. Mario Cucharclla, Maplewood Development, stated they recently closed on the Shultz property, stated he fdtthey could be accommodating with streets and plans and would also like a copy of the applicant's plans. He stated the issue to them is access to sanitary sewer and he is assuming that they will be bringing this to the north ofthcir site as they would need access as well. lie also added that thc issue with zoning has kept them from pursuing further. -9- . Loren O'Bricn, rcsident to the west of Shultz property, asked the numher of lots and applicant stated they arc proposing 80 homcs. Also asked about zoning and what is proposcd to be zoned in the city's land usc plan. Grittman stated it currcntly calls fl.)r R-l A zoning and O'Brien askcd why that would be zoned different. O'Ncill statcd that staff will be fine tuning and would hc looking at R-I and R-IA, also stating that thc Maplewood property may not mect thc R- I A standards due to thc lay ofthc land and the ilnpact ofthc ccll tower. O'Neill added that primarily the R-l A zoning would he where thcrc is land with hills and views, trees, no gas lines, etc. Pricc range per applicant is $200,000+. Craig Madsen, resident in the Wildwood Ridge devclopment, asked what that dcvclopment and Roll ing Woods development are zoncd, and Grittman stated R-I. John Arkell, applicant, stated they came in as an invite from staff to do a second tier project, doing an R-l development with R-l A standards as the land is f1at with no trees. They have chosen to proceed as he feels this community has the need and it can hc donc here. Also stated that thc Shultz property across from thc developmcnt will stay as it is which he feels is an assct. . The public hearing was then closed. Chair Frie asked that knowing the opinion of the staif regarding PUD, why apply for that and the applicant agreed that it is not ncccssary. He stated that he was aware of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Applicant was askcd about his concern with R-l A standards and Mr. Arkell stated his concerns were with dcnsity, adding that the Parks Commission pulled out two of their lots already. Arkell also stated that when they began they did not know therc would be that many exits, or that they would lose the two lots, as well as gas lines in the area. Ilcrbst asked if this was zoned R-IA could they mcct the density requirement and hc statcd he did figure this in and ifhe could get 80 units they could meet the standards. O'Neill also asked the applicant that if this werc to bc zoned R-l and the applicant chosc to build R-l A standard homes, what would be thc city's guarantee that this would occur and Arkell stated that pcrhaps they could state this in the developers agrcement. otherwise he was not sure what hc could do to guarantee the city. Mr. Madscn, resident, stated that the reason they purchased where thcy did was hecause it was on a hill with a view and he felt Arkell was not correct in that his land did not Ineel the R-IA standards, but Arkell statcd there is a hill, hut no trees. Grittman stated they actually could apply PUD zoning to this which would cnablc thc applicant to gel that number of lots on an R-IA, suggesting that the planning commission may want to approve a PUD concept rather than denying, subject to verification of zoning standards. Applicant stated he wanted the PUD to be denied, but wantcd zoning to bc R- I. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RE-lONING TO R-I, SlJBJECT TO FINAL ANNEXATION APPROVAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH TI-IE CITY'S LONG TERM LAND USE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. -I o~ . . . Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROn DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROv AL OF TIlE PRELIMINAR Y PLAT. SUBJECr TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT /, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITII APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS, THE PLAT WOULD MEET TIlE CITY'S INTL.:NT FOR SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION IN TIllS AREA. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED TIlE MOTION. Motion carried unan i lnously. A MOTION WAS MAnE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEvL.:LOPMENT FOR THE FIELDS OF HILLSIDE HURST. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of a simple subdivision request and Public llcarin!1: on consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing residential uses on the first floor of a structure in the Central Community Distriet. Applicant: Gary Nesseth John Glomski provided the staff report descri bing the appl icant' s request f<Jr simple subdivision and conditional use permit for Lots 9 and 10, Block 20, Original Monticello. The applicant's intention is to construct a single family home on the newly created lot. Glomski stated the applicant meets requirements for lot size and setbacks. A list of required plantings was provided as well. Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. There was no response, therefore Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Frie commented that the motions should be separatc for the two requests. Frie asked Mr. Nesscth if he was aware of the conditions listed and he stated that he was. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE TilE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION BASED ON TIlE FINDING TIIA T IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CCD ZONING nISTRICT. Ron DrZAGSTEN SECONDED 'fHE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE TI IE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. Front yard setback of no less than 20' b. Side yard setback of 6' c. Rear yard setback of 30' d. Minimum building setback for buffer yard of 20' e. Minimum landscaped yard in buffer yard of 15' f. Applicant lnust provide verification of meeting the minimum landscape unit requirement of 39 units RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THI': MOTION. Motion carricd unanimously. -11- . . . 11. Public llcaring - Consideration of ordinance amendments clarifyin!1: single Lunily zoning standards based on recent district standard adoption. Appl icant: Citv of Monticello Steve Grittman provided the report advising that this item is intended to hring the ordinance into consistency with the changes that were recently lnade. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response. the public hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARl ,SON TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TI IE ORDINANCE REVISIONS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TIIL.:Y SUPPORT TilE CITY'S ADOPTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED TilE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Public Ilcaring - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning map to re- zone Groveland 3rJ Addition from Agriculture - Open Space to Single Family Residential. Applicant: Ocello, LLC John Glomski provided the report stating Ocello's request for re-zoning for the third phase of the Groveland Addition. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There was no response so the public hearing was then closed. It was advised that the development will have the same requirements for standards. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL FOR RE- ZONINC, OF TilE (JROVELAND 3RD ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDINCi- TIIAT THE PROPOSED USE IS IN CONFORMANCI.: WITII THE OBJECTIVES OF 'fl-lE CITY'S COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN. ROD DRA(JSTEN SECONDED TilE MOTION. Motion carried unanirnously. 13. Public llearing - Consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan land use Quide plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the rcport stating that the plan has been reviewed in concept t"i:mn by staff and city orticials, and has been presented at a public open house J(lr review and feedback. Grittman summarized the COlnments received at the open house as well as questions that were raised that could affect the overall concept. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dick VanAllen, representative for the IDC, questioned the Gold Nugget property and also why stall had excluded manufacturing Ii'OIl1 that property. O'Neill advised that he did not believe that they excluded all mal1Ld~lcturing in this area, but perhaps heavy manufacturing. Grittman stated that was ~ 12- . true and that they did not exclude warehouse/office. Van Allen then requested that the planning conHllission declare a moratorium until there was further input Ii'om the I-IRA, EDA, IDe, Chamber, Planning COll1mission, City of Monticello and any local groups, He suggested the possibility of a Saturday workshop with opportunities to discuss. I-Ie felt the city should look at the proposed land use plan and the f~lct that there would need to be an interchange, as well as problems with serving capacity, which he believes is necessary to recover tax capacity. Ollie Koropchak addressed the planning cOlllmission advising that the liRA had made a previous recommendation as presented back on January S, 2002, to complete an industrial park by the City/HRA, by April 2003. She stated she just wanted to bring that recommendation f()1'ward. Frie stated he had met individually with members of some of the commissions and was dumbfounded by the lack of support of the proposed land use plan, stating that lllany were very disgruntled with what was being proposed. It was a counci I member who recommended to Frie the samc idea of a meeting of the groups to discuss the plan further. Fire asked if the planning commission was locked into a time fi'ame as Iar as recommending a plan to the city council, stating he would fcel more comf()!'table if the other commissions and the community were morc supportive in what is being proposed. . Frie asked about the IDes plan for industrial acquisition and where is the city at with that. O'Neill stated that they agreed it would be great to have land as a tool. but did they want to use the available land up fl.)r that purpose, He also statcd the city council was in favor ofa portion of the Clold Nugget property, as well as the Remmele parcel. to be re- zoned to industrial. I Icrbst also reminded them that the Chadwick property was initially thought to be industrial and unfl.wtunately that did not work out as first planned. Grittman statcd that from land use side, the question should be where should the industrial park be, not should the city have one. Once decided on where it should be, then is the time to decide how to develop it. Grittman stated he wanted to separate the how to do it from thc where to do it. J-Ic stated that his recommendation would be not to re-zone the Rcmmelc property to industrial as a quick fix, as it is better suited for commercial due to its location/visi bi I ity. O'Neill stated that is the purpose of a public hearing, to get opinions and feedback. Carlson stated he felt everyone seemed to have their own agenda, yet they don't come l(lrward. O'Neill asked if the lllain issue is the industrial side of it. and if that was resolved, would that satisfy SOIVO of the concerns. Van Allen stated, personally, he felt that may be the case and that he felt that if the city would zone a certain anlount of industrial land at a designated area by a designated date, they would be satisfied. Koropchak followed up on a comment from Van Allen, under Grittman' s narrative regarding item 4 in staff report. . It was stated that zoning does not distinguish between "light manufacturing" and "industrial" at this point. Grittman stated that regarding Gold Nugget, that distinction -13- . . . hadn't been madc. The public hearing was then closed. Thc planning commission fclt they would like to have an inflwmalmccting with the comnlissions stated previously, prior to making any dccisions on the comprehensi vc land usc plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION. PENDING INPUT [<,ROM THE MONTICELLO TOWNSIIIP, COMMISSIONS OF TilE IDC, cDA, HRA. PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL LIAISON CLINT HERBST, WITII TilE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS TlIE OPPORTUNITY TO FINALIZE AND MAKE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO 'fHE CITY COUNCil, BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION. There was further discussion advising that thc various commission should bc prcparcd to show their rationale when presenting at the meeting. O'Neill asked the commissioncrs if there was anything they felt stall should modify/clarify in the proposed plan prior to the meeting and Frie stated possibly offering options, but also asked that staff COlne to the meeting with an open mind. Herbst agreed with the meeting and asking for rationale as well. O'Neill stated he would schedule this within 30 days, after cach committee has met to discuss. Van Allcn questioned having Township represcntation and Frie advised there was no formal presentation to Monticello Township or County officials. There was no further discussion and the Motion carried unanimously. 14. Public Ilcaring.: Consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to recent amendments to the Residential Development Standards. AIJl1licant: City of Monticcllo. Steve Grittman provided the stall rcport stating that the proposed changes have been discussed generally, and arc intended to affect the way new plats arc laid out. Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no response the public hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITII T{) RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF TIlE SlJBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMI~NDMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING TI IAT TI IE AMFNDMI~NTS SlJPPORT THE COMPRFIIENSIVE PLAN GOALS OF IIIGI WR QUALITY IIOlJSING DEVELOPML':NT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. There was further discussion by l-Ierbst regarding development on the Schultz property and his concern is that they would not meet the R-l A standards, and then sold ofT to another developer, as in the case of River Forest. lie also asked if they need this in the form of a developcrs agreclnent and it was stated they cannot force this issue. Grittman stated the only way to enforce would be that if the developer ilnposes private covenants, approve with the condition that the covcnants can not be changed. -14- . . . 15. Consideration of applications for vacated Plannin~ Commission member seat. The planning commission Celt they would like to keep the position open for a while longer to see if there would be a better response. 16. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN TIlE MJ::ETING AT II: 15 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. @: ~aun~ ec rder -15-