The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 04-05-2005 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5th, 2005 6:00 r.M Commissioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1 . Call to ordcr. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, March 1st, 2005. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Jefferson Commons, an 890 acre mixed-use development. Applicant: Heritage Development 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create two conforming unplatted lots in a PZM (Performance Zoned-Mixed) Zoning District Applicant: Antoinette Breiwick 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for the intensification of use of a drive-through at a convenience fast food establishment. Applicant: McDonald's Corporation 8. Public Hearing'- Consideration of a request for Varianee from the 5 foot parking setback as required by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to create a drive-through aisle for a convenience fast-food establishment. Applicant: Frauenshuh Companies 9. Public Hearing -, Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stagc Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Poplar Hill, a residcntial subdivision consisting of 228 single family units, 180 townhome units and 300 apartment units; and a request for Rezone from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-l A, R-l and R-2A (Single-family Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), B-3, IJighway Business and PZR (Performance Zone-Residential). Applicant: Insignia Development . . . 10. 11. Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the R-l A zoned potion of the plat of Spirit I-fills. Applicant: Maplewood Development Public l-fearing - Consideration ofa request to amend the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to the regulation of Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulating relocation of lawful non-conforming billboard signs. Appl icant: City of Monticello 13. Planning CommissionJCity Council Tour Informational Update 14. Adjourn - 2 - . . . MINUTES REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 1st, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: Dick Frie Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Stafr Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. Acting Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Chairman Frie. Commissioner Dragsten also welcomed new Planning Commissioner Sandy Suchy, who was appointed to the seat vacated by Richard Carlson. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, February 1 st. 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSrONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MJNUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 Sl, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRiED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen eomments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a lot line adiustment for two single-family residential lots in an R-l Zoning District. Applieant: Stephanie Rossebo O'Neill reviewed the statTreport, explaining that the request is to accommodate a lot line shift for a fenceline that had been inadvertently placed over the existing property line. O'Neill reported that the property owners of the two parcels were in agreement on the shift of the lot line. O'Neill stated that the resulting lots after the shift will be fully conforming. O'Neill noted that due to shift, the existing 6 foot drainage and utility easements would need to be vacated and reestablished based on the new property line. Six foot drainage and utility . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 eascments around lots are requircd as part of thc platting process. O'Neill stated that the applicant will be requesting the vacation at the next City Council meeting and has provided a revised survey indicating the proper location of the easement after vacation and relocation. Spartz inquired as to whether proper setbacks were being maintained with the lot shift. O'Neill indicated that setbacks will be met. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE LOT UNE SHIFT BE ALLOWED TO CREATE TWO PARCELS AS DESCRIBED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY, SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROV AL OF THE VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND THE SUBMfSSfON OF A NEW SURVEY ILLlJSTRA TING PROPER LOCATION OF THE REQUIRED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED 6. Publ ic I Iearin)" _ Consideration of are uest for a ConditionallJ se Permit for 0 en and Outdoor Stora'e in an I-IA Zonin T District. A licant: Twin Cit Dic Castin' Patch provided the staff report for the request. Patch explained that open and outdoor storage is allowable in the I-I A Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit, subject to those tcrms prescribed in the zoning code. Patch reviewed the sizc and function of the storage area, which consists of approximately 1,125 square feet and ineludes both a covered and uncovered storagc arca. The covered area will be used to store metal scrap bins, while the outdoor storage area will be uscd for storages\ such as used palettes. Patch explained that the applicant's plans conform to the terms outlined in thc code. Patch indicated that staff is recommcnding that the storagc area bc screened with tall evergreens and that thc covered storage area be colored to match architectural elements of the existing building. Patch referred to the access road along wcst line of Twin City Die Casting and explained that this proposed storage area would be exposed to school property. Patch stated that staff recommend approval, subject to provided plans and staff recommendations as noted. Suchy asked if this request would be allowable under the terms ofthe proposed amendment fe)f open and outdoor storage. Patch confirmed that this request would be allowable by CUP. Dragsten inquired about size of the storage area as compared to the building. Patch and Twin City Die Castings rcpresentative Don Gunnsten clarified the size ofthe storage area. - :2 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Dragsten asked ifthere would still be storage occurring outside. Gunnsten stated with this addition, most storage would be inside or covered. The remaining storage occurring in the uncovered, fenced area would be palettes. Dragsten opened public hearing. Hearing no comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked what the f100r of the fenced area would be composed of. Gunnsten stated that thc non-covered area would be asphalt. Gunnsten stated that the covered area is currently proposed to be cement. Hilgart inquired why thc whole storage area is not enclosed. Gunnsten stated that expense was the primary factor in that decision. Spartz stated that he sought eonfirmation that all scrap metal, magnesium in particular, would be stored in the enclosed area or inside. Gunnsten confirmed that statement as acc urate. Suchy asked about how the City pursues violations or public nuisanees in relationship to the approved CUPs for open and outdoor storage. Patch stated if the applieant vioJates the terms identified in the CUP or code, it is addressed as prescribed by code. . Patch added that the elevation drawing provided by Twin City Dic Casting was a simpJe schematic. Patch will look for more detaiJ in architectural compatibility with original building in a review of the permit plans. posusta asked about material types for the fenced area. Gunnsten stated that the fence would be standard chain link with slats in a color similar to the color of building. posusta asked whether the applicant should provide an alternative style of fencing in the same color as the building. Patch cited that the applicant meets the terms required by the code and noted the recommended evergreens for additional buffering and screening. posusta inquired whether the 12 foot fence was allowable. Patch stated it would be by permit. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO TWIN CITY DIE CASTINGS AT 520 CHELSEA ROAD FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, SUBJECT TO TIlE PLANS PROVIDED AND ATTACHED AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDAT10NS OF STAFF AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER I-IILGART. MOTION CARRIED. . 'J - (") - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 7. Public Hearin _ Considcration of are uest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow loadin dock doors frontin a ublic street on a corner lot in an 1-2 District. A licant: Ta er Holdings, LLC Grittman providcd the staff report for thc request, explaining that the Conditional Use Permit is required due to the corner lot, on which thc loading dock doors face Edmonson, a public street. (Jrittman stated that Exhibit Z outlines specific conditions related to the request. Grittman noted that the plan providcd by the applicant does show that the screening provided is more than adequate to accomplish intended purpose. Grittman explained that the proposed plan docs not rcf1ect adequatc parking as outlined in the code. However, the applicant has adequate room to provide the additional parking. Exhibit Z includes a condition that adequatc parking is provided. With those notations and others in Exhibit Z, Grittman statcd that staff is recommending approval of thc conditional use permit. Hilgart asked whether the area shown west of the loading dock area could bc uscd for the additional parking. Grittman stated that the area would bc pavement for truck circulation. Grittman stated that it is more likely that the parking will bc added elsewhere. Dragsten opencd the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Dragsten closcd the public hcaring. Dragsten asked Bill Tapper, applicant, if the addition will be used primarily for storagc. Tappcr rcsponded that the addition will be lcascd to a second company for distrihution purposes. Dragtsen asked if the company would be adding jobs. Tapper stated that the leasing business employs approximately 40 persons. I--Iilgart asked if any retail would be occurring on site, as it would warrant additional parking. Tapper stated both the cxisting business and thc new leasee are wholesale distributors, with a maximum employee count 01'75. The plan shows 100 parking spaces. Hilgart inquired whether he is willing to add thc spaces as recommended. Tapper confirmed that he could provide the additional parking as his current site has space to do so. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE LOCATION OF LOADING BERTHS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE SUBJECT SITE BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAPF REPORT FOR THE MARCIl 1, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's off-street parking supply requirements through proof of parking or employee counts. To achieve the required parking supply, consideration should be given to "infilling" the existing parking lot to the extent possible. 2. The submitted site plan is revised to illustrate required parking stalls to be devoted to use by the disabled. -t - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 3. The proposed plantings comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. To the extent possible, the proposed building addition match the existing building in terms of design and color. 5. All exterior lighting be directed such that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent propeliies or rights-of-way. 6. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading and drainage issues. DRAGSTEN SOUGIIT CONFIRMATION THAT TIlE APPLICANT HAD SEEN EXHIBIT Z. TAPPER CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting that the applicants are seeking a replat of a portion of Prairie Ponds and a rezoning of the entire Prairie Ponds area to B-4, Regional Business. Grittman explained that the replat is requested to create three rc-shaped commercial building lots from Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1 of the original Prairie Ponds plat. The replat is intended to accommodate a bank development (on a portion of the proposed Lot 2), with pad development sites for what are currently undesignated uses. Grittman noted that the lot shapes create a driveway route to Deegan Avcnue NE, which will be used by all three commercial lots under a future CUP or PUD design. Grittman stated that the replatted lots meet the City's commercial zoning requirements. In regard to the rezoning request, Grittman explained that the B-4 designation is more encompassing than the current B-3 District, which is oriented toward automobile uses and other highway business. The B-4 district is the City's most comprehensive business district. It is also the zoning designation for the adjoining Jefferson Commons commercial project, as well as other commercial areas to the east of Highway 25. Grittman indicated that rezoning to B-4 would be consistent with the area and with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which directs the arca for commercial use. Grittman reported that staff is recommcndi ng approval of both the replat and the rezoning request. - :> - . . . Planning Commission Agcnda 08/03/04 Dragsten askcd if the primary drive aisle to Lot 1, Block 1, as shown with an access point at Deegan Avenue, provides adequate stacking distance to School Boulevard. Grittman stated that it is his undcrstanding that the engineers have seen the plan as proposcd and arc comfortable with the shared drivc at that location, as it avoids a serics of driveways. Dragstcn inquired if surrounding properties are zoned B-4. Grittman rcsponded that to north, the 8-3 designation is morc common. However, south of School Boulevard, including Jefferson Commons, the B-4 designation is more common. Brad Larson representing Prairie Pointc, LLC, made himself available for questions from thc Commission and public. Dragstcn opened the public hcaring. Hearing no commcnt, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Larson noted that one of thc concerns addressed previously by staff was the need for confirmation that construction on or near the pipeline casement was acceptable to the petroleum company. Larson confirm cd that thc permit has been obtained. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE BEST LONG-TERM USE OF THE SITE IS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES, AND THAT THE B-4 DESIGNATION WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ALSO ZONED B-4. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER} IILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE REPLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REPLAT IS BEST SUITED FOR THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY, AND TlTAT ALL LOTS IN THE REPLAT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET TI-lE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Consideration of a sketch plat for Pine West a proposed five-unit residential subdivision in an R-I district. Applicant: West Side Markct Grittman providcd an ovcrview of the sketch plat, indicating that no formal action is requircd in a skctch plat review. Instcad, the applicant is looking for fcedback from the Commission on the sitc design and any potential issues associated with the plan. - (j - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Grittman explained that the applicants had previously come forward with an application for preliminary plat. At that time, the application was considered incomplete due to general plat requirement deficiencies. Since that time, the applicants expresscd their intent to move forward with a request for preliminary plat based on the proposed site plan, at which time planning staff adviscd thcm to seck Commission's feedback. In relationship to this plan, staff had previously expresscd concern about the realignment process for Otter Creek Road as well as the entrances shown onto County Road 75. The access points onto County 75 appear to be unsafe with driveways in their current position. Grittman noted that thc applicant has indicated that he had receivcd verbal approval on the access points from the County. Grittman stated that the other issuc of note is related to the 5 lots, shown at widths which do not meet basic R-l zoning standards. At the time of preliminary plat, the applicant would also need to seek variances for each to be platted as they are. . Grittman stated that the applicants are looking for Planning Commission's input prior to moving a formal application for plat forward. Specifically, the applicant will need to know whether the variances and the proposed access points would be looked upon favorably. Finally, Commission should address the issue of realignment of Otter Creek Road, which requires a vacation of right of way, acquisition ofright of way and the actual improvement project itself in order for the plat to proceed as shown. It was noted that the applicants were not present at this time. Hilgart inquired whether staff knew the reasoning for deviating from the R-2A preliminary plat that had been previously approved for this site. Grittman stated that he did not know. Hilgart stated that there is no existing hardship to warrant the variances. Dragsten asked who would be responsible for acquiri ng the additional right of way for Otter Creek Road. Grittman stated that the City would be involved in assisting the applicant. The acquisition of the corner would be negotiated with property owner, and it is conceivable that somc compensation would be made to the City for the purchasc of the existing right of way. Grittman stated that those details have not bcen finalized. posusta stated that he doesn't think the County has a problem with the access points onto County 75 due to the grandfather situation of the two previous access points. Posusta commented that the applicants have tried other ways to develop what is currently a vacant convenience store. posusta noted that when the applicants proposed a back loaded plan, there was opposition from area residents who wantcd to see single family homes on this site. posusta expressed his desire to remove the current blighted situation. . Oragsten agreed that it is important for thc arca to redevelop, but noted that the applicants had a previous approval that would havc been a good addition. Posusta stated that he believed the applicants did not proceed with that plan as they didn't want opposition from - 7 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 the neighborhood. Dragsten expressed that his concern with granting ofthe variances is the neighboring properties. Dragsten indicated that the lot size isn't consistent with those parcels. Hilgart stated that he thinks the lot widths should be met, that the applicant should reduce the lot count to four. Spartz commented that not knowing what was presented previously, she is concerned about the driveways as shown. Suchy indicated that she would prefer that the driveways be behind the houses and should not access County 75. Suchy also expressed concern about lot dimensions. Suchy stated that the applicants should meet the minimum zoning standards. 10. Public Hearin -,- _ Consideration of an ordinance amendment for buildin T desi n standards for the R- I ^ (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission . Grittman provided an overview of the staff report, explaining that the R-IA zoning standards had been adopted with the intent of ensuring that the City did not lose prime development areas to modest cost single-family housing. Grittman stated that the R-l A zoning district was applied to areas that were to be preserved unti 1 the market was able to catch up to provide upscale housing. Orittman noted that at the time the standards were originally presented, they were debated at length. Grittman noted that these sizes were set up to take advantage of the amenity present and work with it to come up with a more creative plat. The other standards incorporated were finished and foundation square footage requirements. Since the time the ordinance was approved, Orittman reported that the City has been approached by developers and builders who purchased R-l ^ land, asking to relax the standards. The primary concern seems to be over the 1400 square foot foundation size. Grittman referred to Hillside Farm, in which the developer received an amendment as the lot sizes were R-I lots, although the zoning under the PUD standards was R-l A. The City has also becn approached by two other developers that have current R-IA plat proposal, investigating the potential to relax. The issue in both ofthosc cases has been thc foundation requirement, which seems to encourage splits. Grittman stated that the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment is to maintain the current R-l A standards, but close the loophole allowing split entry homes. . l-Jilgart inquired what percentage of Monticello's available land is designated R-1A. Grittman stated that if looking at the existing corporate boundary, perhaps 10% of available lam!. However, iflooking at the new annexation boundary, it would most likely be something significantly less. Dragsten asked how many R-IA areas are currently slated for development. Grittman respondcd that Carlisle Village, Spirit Hills, and the Hillside Farm ~ H - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 hybrid are all working in their developments. Dragsten noted that with Carlisle Village, only a portion of the plat was actually final platted into lots. The balance, including the R- 1 A, is on the agenda for review this evening. Grittman statcd that staff have also had a discussion with the developer of Spirit l-lills on their intention to pursue final platting. Dragsten commented that the way he had rcad the proposed amendment, it required no less than 2000 square foot finished floor area above exterior grade. It also allows for a lookout basement design. Grittman stated that the amendment requires designs to still be subject to 1000 square feet finished at front entry, in combination with finished square footage. Grittman commented that this arrangement accommodates a three-level or four-level design, but not a pure split entry. Dragsten opened thc public hearing. . Ron I,ong spoke to the Commission on behalf of Keyland Homes, builder for Hillside Farm. Long stated that the current average sale price for homes in Hillside Farm is $320,000- $340,000. Long stated that he believes the next set of homes will be in the $350,000 to $425,000 range. Long eommented that the issuc seems to be the two-story foundation size, Keyland's primary design. Long stated that 2400 square feet above grade, or 1200 square foot foundation size, seems to be the maximum size bomcowners can afford. Long stated that Keyland builds in about 25 difTerent communities; they don't have any other places with similar standards. Long stated that most restrictions occur through architectural approvals. Dragsten asked Long Keyland had been able to meet the minimum finished square footage requirement, as amended, without issue. Long stated that Keyland has bcen able to meet the required minimum finished area without problem. Steve Conroy, attorney with Conroy Law Offices, 261 East Broadway, stated that he understands that the homes described meet the needs of average families. Conroy stated that it seems that Monticello already has an abundance of average and entry level housing. Conroy reported that his family had looked extensively for move up for housing in Monticello, without success. Conroy stated that he isn't certain that even the proposed amendment would create true move-up housing and neighborhoods. Conroy noted that there are currently no neighborhoods that meet the R-l A standards. Conroy stated that although Keyland provides nice housing, he doesn't know that it is truly R-l A housing. Conroy noted that the price of housing is not what it used to be. For exanlple, Conroy stated that ten years ago, $300,000 was high-end housing. Conroy indicated that the $300,000 price range is not currently high end. Conroy recommended Commission toughen the ordinance. . Mario Cocciarella addressed the Commission representing Maplewood Development, developer of Spirit Hills. Cocciarella stated that Maplewood had started with the townhome section of their project, with the intent that the single family portion would come later as the market developed for higher end housing. Cocciarella stated that in the next phase of their townhome project, all units will be above $200,000. Cocciarella stated that they have tried markcting beyond Monticello for their high-end product. Howcver, they are finding that - 9 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 they need to redirect their marketing back into the City. Cocciarella stated that Monticello buyers are not ready for thc housing that thc R-IA standards rcquire. Cocciarella stated that in his opinion, the foundation minimums are not reasonable and noted that in somc cases, thc lay of the land will also dictate what type of house can be built on a given lot. Cocciarel1a suggcsted the Commission graduatc its standards, commenting that to have $500,000 plus home simply appear by ordinance is unrealistic. Cocciarella stated that ifthc ordinance stands as is, Maplewood will wait and ask for an extension on their preliminary plat. Cocciarella reported that Maplewood had already lost one buildcr who was unable to mcet the standards. Cocciarella also suggested that split entry designs should he allowed in the district, although with somc finished square footage minimum. I learing no further comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated asked staff if the ordinance was amended at this time, would Spirit Hills be subject to the amcndment. Grittman stated that anything not yet final platted would be subject to thc amended standards. . Hi Igart asked Long and Coeciarella whether the standards were set at a 1400 square foot minimum foundation size when they had applied for preliminary plat, and if so, did something change betwecn then and now. Cocciarella stated that it is difTicult to project what would happen in the markct in relationship to the plats at that time. Cocciarclla agreed that when you look at the Monticel1o housing stock, there isn't a large amount of stcp up anywhere in the community. Cocciarella stated that the trend for larger housing is just happening now as one moves north along 94. Hilgart asked Long if the lowcred minimum at Hillsidc Farm is what is currcntly being built. Long stated that most homes arc in thc 1200 to 1300 squarc foot range. Hilgart askcd if buyers are building larger than the minimum. Long stated that was correct; that price points were not sct as their measure of upscalc standards. Suchy asked if developers would be rcceptive to changes in thc rcquired foundation squarc footages based on i100r plan. Long agreed that the split entry loophoIc should be addressed. I-Elgart stated that hc still believcs that each specific type of house design should have a specific foundation sizc. Hilgart believes the ordinance should require as large a home as possible. For cxample, the rambler standard should be bigger and overall, the total square finished square footage should be greater. . posusta agreed that the ordinance docs need to be adjusted based on thc specific type of home, and possibly incorporatc other criteria. For example, posusta inquired whether more should be required in terms of brick or other fayade detail. posusta stated that City Council has heard there is a need for a higher value house. The Council has also heard feedback ti-om the school district on housing types that bring children to thc district. - 10-- . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Grittman noted that the clement that will most directly affect price is the total finished square footage. Posusta commented that perhaps what was done by covenant in places such as Eastwood Knoll should be outlined in the ordinance. Hilgart stated that creative developers will always be able to find a loophole in the ordinance somewhere. Hilgart stated that he has noticed that two-stories or largc walk-out ramblers tend to dominate in mid to upper range home styles. IJilgart commented that the amendmcnt should address that trend. Oragsten confirmed that the way the existing ordinance reads, it seems to encourage splits. Dragsten asked how the proposed amendment impacts the ordinance. Grittman stated that it would allow a rambler, two-story or multi-level. Suchy stated that she talked with a builder, who also fclt it was important for the Commission to differentiate between the rambler and the two-story. . Hilgart suggested a standard of 1700-1800 square foot foundation size for a rambler. Dragsten stated that a higher standard for ramblers may encourage a two-story. Hilgart commented that he would look for a 1200-1300 square foot standard for two-story homes. Drgatsen stated that while the Commission wants to encourage move-up, a realistic minimum is needed and should be combined with mOfe exterior detail. Coeciarella indicated that the code doesn't need a complcte revision, just minor adjustments. Cocciarella noted that in some cases, large ramblers won't work with the widths of some lots. Cocciarella rcferred to his othcr developments in ncighboring communities, where splits exceed 1600 square fcet. He also explained that lots prices in those areas, some as high as $100,000 for ] acre lots, dictate the type of housing. Cocciarclla stated that the only major issue he sees is the two-story foundation requirement. Hearing no further comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz asked if it made sense to table the amendment item in order to review square footage and building requirements. Grittman recommended that if the item was tabled, staff would seck direction on thc specifics that Commission would like to come back. Hilgart requested that staff provide information that addressed square footage recommendations for each building style. Posusta suggested that Commission should vote on this amendment to close the loophole. Dragsten noted that it would be important to consider a vote carefully, as the Commission wouldn't want to amend the Ofdinance now, only to amend again soon. . Suchy stated that perhaps by establishing minimums fi)r each building design, it might be casier for developers and builders to adhere to. Grittman stated that there is a counterbalance in how detailed the ordinance is in order to encourage varied building styles. - 11 - -. - . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IHLGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE R- IA ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE R-] A DISTRICT IS TO PRESERVE HIGH AMENITY LAND FOR TRUE UPPER END HOUSING, AND THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE PERMITS HOUSING THAT MA Y INTERFERE WITH THAT GOAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY Prior to a vote, Dragsten stated that he would rather leave the amendment as written, but he was curious whether Hilgart wanted to leave the clause requiring that at least] ,000 square feet of such area shall be at the same finished floor elevation as the front entry. There was some discussion amongst the Commissioners as to what the elimination ofthis language would restrict. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART AMENDED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE R-] A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF T'HE R-IA DISTRICT IS TO PRESERVE HIGH AMENITY LAND FOR TRUE UPPER END HOUSING, AND THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE PERMITS HOUSING TlIA T MAY INTERFERE WITH THAT GOAL, WITH DELETION OF THE CLAUSE STATING: "AT LEAST 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF SUCI [AREA SIIALL BE AT THE SAME FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AS "fHE FRONT ENTRY" MOTION SECONDED I3Y COMMISIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. Staffis seeking clarification on the intent of Planning Commission's motion on this ordinance prior to approval of these minutes. Commission directed staff to prepare specific square footage recommendations for home types in the R-IA Zoning District. Posusta asked Grittman to review how other cities address these issues within their codes. 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and consideration of a revised Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village, a 238-unit residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that this is a new application for replat and amendment to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Grittman stated that Carlisle Village, although guided for R-l A development, was previously approved as a PUD consisting of multiple zoning districts. The site consists of 78 acres of total development area. Grittman report that a portion of the site has already been final platted as the 1 sl Addition. In a review of revised preliminary plat documentation related to the conditions of that plat, the City discovered that a portion of land along the - 12 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 southern boundary was not included in the revised plans. The developer reported that due to a surveying error, it was discovered that a portion of the south boundary belonged to an adjacent property owner. As such, Orittman indicated that the applicant was instructed to redesign the plat. In addition, the devcloper has requested an amendment to both the R-2 and R-IA portions of the site. Grittman reviewed the issues related to the requests, referring to the staff report. Specifically, Grittman cited that this area was guided for low density development and to be predominately single family. However, by PUD, the Council approved a plan that allowed the developer to average density over the entire project. With the entire site considered as one unit, the developer could aceommodate a 3 unit per acre density. Grittman stated that more townhouses and small lot single family were allowed than normal under a more traditional method of calculating density. Grittman noted that the intent behind this approval was specifically to allow for the developer to make a better effort to preserve trees in the R-IA area. For example, the developer was to design the streets and lots to save the most trees. . Grittman stated that the replat proposed maintains the same number of lots, despite the loss of land. Grittman commented that the developer has in most cases met only the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, Grittman explained that while the plat meets the R-IA minimum, it docs not exceed the standards as required by the PUD ordinance. Orittman stated that the other significant issue is that the grading plan seems to represent a mass grading effort which changes the grade for a large width of area. Under the original PUD approval, the developer stated that it was their intent to custom grade building sites to preserve trees. Grittman also stated that with lots meeting only the minimums, there is a concern that combined with grading, the devcloper will not be able to preserve the number of trees they has promised. Grittman noted that the original plat showed lot depths between 150-180 feet. The current plan shows lot depths as little as 122 feet. Under this plan, the building pads consume almost all of the lot, which Grittman indicated does not lend itself to preserving trees. Grittman referred to the staff sketch plan, which illustrated an alternate lot arrangement by which a greater amount of tree preservation would occur. Staff is recommending a reduction in lot count based on these factors. . In regard to the R-2 portion of the site, the original townhome builder is no longer involved with the project. The developer has found an alternative builder. Grittman reported that the new builder's townhome design requires a deeper footprint, which causes a squeeze for the number of units. Again, Grittman stated that it seems the developer's main goal is to maintain as many units as possible, which results in a loss of spaciousness for the town home area. Additionally, the ratio of R-I A to non-R-I A homes seems to be inconsistent with the original approval. Grittman reiterated that the point of a Planned Unit Development is higher quality than the base ordinance standards, especially given density accommodations. Grittman referred to the examplcs ofR-2A housing provided by the developer, which had been offered by the applicant as part of original approval. Grittman stated that staff would - 1:1 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 request that the applicant confirm that those examples are still consistent with what their builders will be building. Grittman noted that the designs presented encourage tlush or reccssed garages, two-story or story and a half designs. Finally, Grittman stated that the applicant, stall and somc members of Council met prior to this Commission meeting Grittman explained that as a result of that meeting, an alternative Exhibit Z had been prepared, rei1ecting what the dcveloper's prefcrred conditions of approval would be. Grittman stated that stalf arc recommending approval contingent on the conditions as outlined in the staff report and staff list of conditions. These conditions includc a reduction in lot and townhome unit count in order to maximize tree preservation; retaining original intended densities; and the reconfirmation of R-2A building standards. . Spartz inquired about drainage on site and pond pumping. O'Neill stated that thc developer, the developcr's engineer, and the City engineer have worked to address the drainage issues. The developer has also provided funds to pay for a lift station. That facility hasn't bcen built yet, as the City is waiting for the deep trunk linc project to proceed along Ditch 33. O'Neill reported that the pond pumping will continue until that point. Hilgart askcd Grittman what the biggest differences are between the replat and the original. Grittman stated that the most significant issues are lot and townhome density in relationship to loss ofland and the request for reductions in R-IA standards. Hilgart asked how many units would be lost under the negotiated conditions. Grittman stated that it would most I ikely vary from three to six units. Dragsten opened the public hearing. Brad Kitzman, 8608 Troy Marquette Drive and John Kautza, 8548 l'roy Marquette Drive addressed the Commission regarding problems with drainage as a result of the Carlisle Village development. Kitzman and Kautza presented pictures of the area, including their lots, referring to the grading plan and the amount of run-off water on their lots. They inquircd if Planning Commission had a plan to address their concerns. . O'Neill stated that according to the project engineer, the grading plan is designed so that water will drain properly into the dcsignated retention ponds. Kautza and Kitzman expressed their doubts about the accuracy of that plan and requcsted further rescarch into drainage in the area. Dragsten clarified for Kautza and Kitzman that the project is not completed. As such, plans show that proper grading at completion of the project will allow water to now properly. Kautza asked who was legally responsible if drainage doesn't work as required. Oragsten stated that engineers from both the City and the development company are hired to complete plans, reviews and inspections. ~ 11 - Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Patch noted that Chris Kaye, 8462 Troy Marquette Drive, had also been present earlier and asked Patch to convey similar concerns about improper drainage. Patch recommended that the concerns be forwarded to the City Engineer for a written response. O'Neill re-stated that he had specifically asked questions regarding drainage in this area of the project's engineer, who illustrated via the grades on the grading plan how drainage would occur. In that regard, O'Neill indicated that the City's engineers and inspcctors will necd to make sure it is donc correctly. Patch asked when Kautza took the photographs. Kautza stat cd that they had been taken onc month previous; in the timc sincc then, the water has gonc down. Staff clarified for Kitzman that it is illegal for any cxcess drainage as a result of development to flow onto adjaccnt propcrties. . posusta stated that the developer of Carlisle Village knows what the elevations are in the area. Additionally, this specific issue was addressed in the recent meeting with the developer. posusta reported that the developer had assured staff and those present that the elevations of the detention pond are twelve feet or more below adjacent property. posusta stated that until the development is completed, adjacent residents may have standing water. Kautza stated that he has never had standing water before this development. posusta stated that the developer has a right to do with his property what he likes, unless it ncgatively or illegally affects other property owners. O'Neill stated that the City does have significant deposits to ensure that the project is accomplished as it should bc. Dragsten noted for the record that this issue would be taken up with the engineers and stated his appreciation for resident comments. Lucinda Gardner addressed the Commission as developer of Carlisle Village. Gardner statcd that she has becn made awarc of water issues and stated that both the City engineer and theirs are working on thc issuc. Gardncr addressed the comments relayed by Grittman, affirming that she asked for a meeting with statT and Council reprcsentatives after she received the staflreport. Gardner coniirmed that the previous project engineers made the error on south property line which has resulted in the replat. Gardner stated that while the new lots are shorter in depth, tree preservation was always kept in mind. Gardner statcd that they had provided stan' with a revised tree prcservation plan, which indicated that they would be keeping thc samc number of trces, if not morc. Gardner stated that the fact that the lots changcd shape did not affect the tree preservation. . Gardner responded to the comment on mass grading, stating that the grading is not any ditlerent than what was originally proposed. They will bc grading all of the pads at onc timc. However, they will fence offtree prcservation areas. Gardner stated that if the developcr and builders think that they can build on shallow lots, they should be allowed to, as long as they stillmcet standards and preserve trecs. In regard to thc townhomcs, Gardner reported that thc new builder agrecd to make requcstcd changes to roof elevations. Gardner stated that she understood this to be thc main area of ~ 15 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 concern. In regard to the unit count, they have determined that they have a building where they could eliminate one, possibly two units. Gardner indicated that the aetual layout of the townhome area is the same; the unit style is just deeper. Gardner made herself available for further questions. Hilgart sked if the developer could purchase the land that was lost. Gardner stated that it had not been possible to do so. Hilgart asked if there was an average for lot sizes that the developer was to meet. Grittman stated that they do meet averaging requirements as required by the base ordinance. . O'Neill spoke about the townhome design, reviewing the new proposed plan versus original. Speeifically, O'Neill referred to the break up of the roof line on the original, along with the detailing to the front of building. O'Neill pointed out that the new proposed units are actually larger. Patch referred to original design, stating that the new town homes do not seem to show the same roof pitch and elevation chmlges. Patch noted that the restrictive covenants supplied by the developer would begi n to describe what staff would be looking for. Patch explained that in terms of design considerations, window and door placement are equally important. Patch asked Commission to incorporate as many words as possible in settings its approvals, as it is helpful for building permit packages. Patch stated that the more specific the requirements, the less subjective his job is in reviewing for conformance. Patch corrected that the restrictive covenants supplied by the developer were for the R-IA area, but stated that he would be looking for the same level of detail in town home or small lot approvals. Posusta commended the developer f()[ taking steps to move in the right direction. Hilgart stated that he is concerned about the lots decreasing in size. He asked how the developer can lose land but still preserve trees. Hilgart stated that it seems larger lots would save more trees. Therefore, he stated that he would lean toward the elimination of lots. Grittman stated that the developer had convinced those present at the recent staff/developer meeting that the same type of home would be built, despite the smaller lots. Grittman stated that perhaps having more large homes, rather than less due to fewer lots, impacted the thinking on that condition. Posusta confirmed that statement was accurate. O'Neill stated that during the recent meeting, he had asked the developer about tree loss. Gardner stated at that time that they had specifically looked at tree preservation when drawing lots shifts. Gardner confirmed that they want highcr lot prices, which reconfirms their home sizes and tree preservation goal. . Hilgart asked the developer if the builder originally slated for the R-2 area pulled out due to building requirements. Gardner stated that the builder did not think they were not going to be able to sell townhomes in that price range. The R-IA lots were part ofthcir package, as well. Hilgart asked if the builder had a problem with the R-IA standards. Gardner stated - 1 G - . Ph-lining Commission Agenda 08/03/04 that they did not to her knowledgc. Gardncr statcd that she would agree with Cocciarella on the minor changes to the ordinance, as reflected in her request. Ililgart asked if the split levels currently built in the first phase meet the ordinance. Gardner confirmed that they do. Gardner also reported that all lots in the first phase are sold; that most of their builders are waiting to find out whether they can build two story or split homes per the PUD amendment. Suchy stated that she is concerned with the townhome complex. Suchy commented that the whole idea of the R-IA area is large lots. This seems to be in conflict with thc tight townhome area. Suchy stated that she thought more green space should be provided. Gardner stated that the plan prcscntcd is not a dcviation from what was previously approved in terms of the number of units. Garnder also noted that as the townhomcs will bc visible from the rear, thcy have madc significant improvcmcnts to that face. O'Neill stated that with the deeper townhome design, the open space does get pinched. Staff believed that a compromise was to take out units, not complete buildings. . Dragsten sought clarification that the total number of lots has not changed for the R-l A area. Gardner stated that was correct. Dragsten asked if the number of townhomes had changed. Gardncr rcplicd that it remained the same, although thcy had agreed in the recent meeting to remove I or 2 units. Gardner remarked that the road design also remains the same. Dragsten asked if the dcveloper would concede to not build any additional split entry homes in the balmlce of the devleopment. Gardner confirmed that had been negotiated with staff. Dragsten stated that his concern is that once developer is gonc it may hc very difficult to maintain the high building standards. Dragsten asked how the City can control the development of the plat. Grittman stated that the project is controlled by the development agreement, which should contain all of the information from the approval. Gardner also explained that Patch has requcstcd the developer stamp plans before delivery to the building inspector, as a further measure to ensure the developer has reviewcd each plan for conf()rmance to thc approval. Dragsten asked Patch if he would be able to take care of all ofthese details as they come through the building department. Patch stated that it is a lot of work and that the flexibility of PUDs can make that work even more intense. However, he noted that thc dcpm1mcnt will work to make certain that if it doesn't meet standards, the permit doesn't go out. Patch requested that stan~ Commission, and Council address when and how a PUT) designation should be used. . Steve Conroy addressed the Commission as the attorney representing Scott Wolters, the adjoining property to the south. Conroy statcd that his elient would support eliminating some of the lots along the southern boundary, as recommended by staff. Conroy related that Wolters also has concerns about his eventual development. Wolters has indicated that hc wants to develop an upscale development. Without the larger lots as shown on the first plat, Conroy stated that Wolters feels it negatively impact the value of his property. Posusta asked if the Wolters property has trees. Conroy stated that it does. Spartz inquired how - 17 - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 large the Wolters parcel is. Conroy replied that it is 40 acres adjoining, although he may have more. posusta asked whether the Wolters property was included in the MOAA. O'Neill responded that it is. Conroy stated that in his opinion as a consumer, buyers of large homes also seek large lots. Hearing no further comment, Dragsten closed public hearing. Suchy stated that she agreed with Conroy in that larger homes should be sited on larger lots. Dragsten pointed out that the developer and builders will have to live by the terms of the PUD approval. Spartz noted that he has general concerns about water drainage that he would like to see resolved. . Hilgart asked the developer to reconfirm the presented standards for the R-2A section. Gardner said that the builder in this section is the same builder as originally proposed; they will follow the same designs as originally proposed. O'Neill clarified that the homes will need to be equal to or better than what was supplied and meet the R-2A code. If they don't meet those standards, they will be sent back to the builder. posusta asked if there would be restrictive covenants on the entire development. Gardner indicated that the R~IA area would be under covenant. The R-2A would not, as she felt that area was covered by the ordinance. Gardner reported that the town home area wi II have a homeowner's association. posusta inquired how the developer felt about the previously recommended ordiance amendment allowing no splits. Gardner stated that based conversations with staff, they will not build any splits outside of the 1 Sl addition in the R-I A area. Hilgart asked O'Neill if Public Works has looked at the design il1f the revised plan. O'Neill stated that the City Engineer didn't comment specifically on the drainage issues mentioned. . O'Neill noted that most comments from staff were relative to general setback and site design. Staff still argues that by taking out strategic units, more open space could be achieved. posusta stated that the removal of some units would be desirable to maintain site lines. Hilgart asked if posusta had a number of units in mind. posusta stated that perhaps six was an appropriate number. Gardner responded, stating that there are only a couple of units closer together than before. Gardner resated that they show the same number of units; the depth of the new design creates the spacing issue. Gardner stated that she is willing to go back and have the units no closer than previous. Hilgart stated that he is willing to leave the number of units eliminated up to stalI. O'Neill suggested that Planning Commissioners ask the developer to create the same geometric picture as originally approved in terms of open space and site lines. Suchy concurred. The Commission directed staff to add to exhibit Z to have staff work with developer on the unit count, amending condition number 5 - I R - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 on the Exhibit Z dated February 28, 2005. Dragsten directed staff to provide an update on grading and drainage at next month's meeting. Decision 1: Replat for Carlisle Village MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED TN EXHIBIT Z AS NOTED WITH A CHANGE TO CONDITION FIVE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE REMOVED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE INTENT OF THE CITY WITH REGARD TO R-IA, R-2A, R-2, AND PUD DEVELOPMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. SUCHY AND SPARTZ DISSENTING. Prior to a vote, Dragsten inquired what Suchy and Spartz's reasoning was for the dissenting vote. . Spartz stated that his concern is still grading and drainage and about the lot sizes. Spartz stated that he believes that staff's recommendation should stand to eliminate some lots. Suchy agreed. Hilgart stated that it is difficult for him to make that recommendation, as the plat meets the minimum standard. Dragsten agreed, stating that it seems the developer is following the previous plat. posusta clarified that the difference in this request is due to the fact that the developer lost land. Patch noted to Commission that the plat might meet base standards, but it does not exceed them as required by PlJD. Patch also asked that the Commission consider whether it is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation. posusta asked for the width of the lots on south side. Grittman stated that they are approximately 90 feet. Dragsten asked how large the widths were originally. Grittman stated that they were perhaps 75-85 feet. posusta asked if Spartz and Suchy would be appeased if lots were removed. Spartz stated that Lots 12, Block 5, and Lot 2 or 7 of Block 6 should be removed. Spatiz also requested that a condition regarding the resolution of drainage issues be included. . WJTH NO VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION, - l~) - . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2005, AS AMENDED BELOW, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE INTENT OF THE CITY WITH REGARD TO R-IA, R-2A, R-2, AND PUD DEVELOPMENT. I. Building plans for R-2A and R-2 homes must be equal to or improved versions ofthe originally approved plans. For the R-2 district, this includes varied rooflines and improved material variation. For the R-2^ district, this includes emphasized front entry areas, recessed, side-loaded or de- emphasized garage doors. 2. Building plans for R-l A homes must meet or exceed the amended R-l A building standards specific to this development as follows: . . No split entry homes in the R-IA area outside of the 1st Addition. . Two-story and modified two-story residential dwellings must meet: o A minimum finished first floor size of 1200 square feet; o A minimum of2300 square feet finished area o Full basements . Rambler residential dwellings must meet: o ^ minimum main floor size of 1600 square feet; o A minimum of2000 square foot total finished area . Other lot and building requirements are as identified within the R-IA District Zoning Ordinance. 3. Verify the participation of the Davidson property owners in the plat. 4. Abide by the tree preservation program established at the time of the original plat and PU D approval, as well as the other conditions of that project approval. 5. Eliminate 2 units from the townhouse layout to increase spaciousness and comply with the attached - detached unit ratio. 6. Provide detailed landscape plans for each zoning district area that abide by the zoning requirements for each district. 7. Provide revised plan sets for all plans retlecting the finally approved preliminary plat with conditions met prior to submission of final plat application. 8. Compliance with the recommcndations of the City Engineer in their report dated rebruary 16,2005. 9. The applicant enter into an amended Development ^greement retlecting thc conditions of approval. 10. Provide verification of the resolution of grading and drainage issues as noted. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER HILGART DISSENTING. - 20 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 Hilgart stated that as the lots had been made wider, it may be that more trees are saved along the back. Hilgart noted that pending the elimination oftownhome units, the single family to townhome ration may be off is lots are removed. Decision 2: Amendment to the Carlisle Village Planned Unit Development to allow alternative townhouse designs in the R-2 portion of the project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HrLGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITII THE ORIGINAL APPROV AL AND RESULT IN A HIGHER LEVEL OF BUILDING AND SUBDIVrSION DESIGN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S PUD ORDINANCE. T1-ns APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE CONDITIONED ON REMOV AL OF UNITS AS NOTED FROM THE PROPOSED PLANS TO INCREASE BUILDING SPACING AROUND THE LOOP STREET. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MUrION CARRIED. Decision 3: Amendment to the Carlislc Village Planned Unit Dcvelopment to allow changes in building size requirements for the R-IA area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS OUTLINED IN EXHlHrT Z, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2005, WITH THE ADDITIONAL STANDARD THAT MODIFIED TWO STORIES WILL REQUIRE A 1,400 SQUARE fOOT FOUNDATION, BASED ON A fINDING TIIAT THE R-1A REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT WELL-SUITED TO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. SPARTZ CLARIfIED THAT THE MOTION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENT TO R-IA Sl'ANDARDS PASSED THAT EVENING. STAFF CONFIRMED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Poplar I !ill, a residential subdivision consisting of228 single family units, 180 townhome units and 300 apartment units; and a request for Rezone from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-IA. R- I and R-2A (Single-family Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and PZR (Performance Zone-Residential). Applicant: Insignia Devclopment Grittman reported that staff request tabling of the item in ordcr to complcte a more throughout review of the project. - 21 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Public F-Tcarinl!: - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinancc regulating relocation of lawful non-conl\xming billboard sil!:ns. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman requested that this itcm be continued until further noticc. MOTION BY COMMISIONER l-IILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 14. Consideration of a sketch plat for Pine Wcst. a proposed five-unit residential subdivision in an R-l district. Applicant: West Side Market West A second review of the request was completed in order to provide information directly to the applicant, who was now present. Tom Holthaus, representing West Side Market, made himself available for eomments. Posusta suggested that the Commission review a plat map to compare the adjacent lot sizes. I Iilgart inquired what type of homes that West Side was proposing to build. Holthaus stated that they would be similar to existing homes, most likely split level. Hilgart asked what the area was guidcd for. Grittman stated that the applieant was cncouraged to develop thc property as R-2A as the district cncourages more traditional homes. Hilgart asked the applicant ifit would be possible to run a road across the back of the property, even ifthc County stated that thc aceess points onto County 75 werc acceptable. Ilolthaus statcd that such an arrangement would need an association agreement, which they wcre not in favor of. Holthaus rcported that Assistant County Engineer Virgil Hawkins had given verbal approval of the access points. Posusta noted that the fifth lot shown couldn't bc completed until Otter Creek was realigned. Dragsten stated that supports the sharcd driveways, although not necessarily the access points. Dragsten inquired who was responsible for acquiring the additional land to make the realignment project work. Holthaus stated that the previous Mayor had indicted that thc City would acquirc the land. At that time, the Mayor had also suggested that perhaps the land could be donated to this project, as it wasn't going to benefit anyone else. Dragstcn noted that the lots shown are not 80 feet wide. He noted that a majority of lots in that area are 80 or wider and that he would look for size consistency in that area. - 22- . . . Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04 IIolthaus statcd that a four lot project isn't feasible for a return on invcstment. Hotlahus also stated that a road through the back is not a likely solution. Suchy indicated that as this project will occur at one of main entrance points to the City, she would bc looking for a project made a positive impact in terms of design. 15. Discussion Item - Heritage Dcvelopment AllAR and Planning Process Grittman reviewed a brief outline and timeline for the Heritage Development project, an 890 acre development proposcd for northwest Monticello. Grittman stated that the Commission would be hearing much more on thc development and would he involved in the planning process. 16. Adjourn MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. - ~:i - . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 5. Public Hearine - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Staee Planned Unit Development for Jefferson Commons. an 890 acre mixed-use development. Applicant: Herita!!e Development REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant has asked that Commission continue the hearing on this request to a meeting date to be decided later. 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 . 6. Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a reQuest for a Simple Subdivision to create two eonforminl! unplatted lots in a PZM (Performance Zoned-Mixed) Zoninl! District. Applicant: Antoinette Breiwiek REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant has asked that Commission continue the hearing on this request to the May meeting. . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 . 7. Public Hearine:: Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second drive-thru. Applicant: McDonald's. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND McDonald's restaurant, located at 100 Oakwood Drive is requesting an amendment to their previously approved Conditional Use Permit to allow a second drive-thru board and stacking aisle. The subject site is zoned B-3, Business Highway District, which allows drive-thru and convenience good establishments with a CUP. The applicant is proposing to add a second menu board and LED speakcr stand for an additional drive-thru lane and relocate the existing menu board and LED speaker stand along the northcast corner ofthc building. The applicant is also proposing to add a landscaped island which would separatc the two stacking lanes for the separate ordering areas, whencc the two lanes would merge to form one line to continue through to the pay and pick-up window(s). Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensivc Plan designates this arca for future commcrcial uses, consistcnt with the proposed CUP amendment. . Zoning. Thc subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business District, which allows for drive-in convenience food establishments as a CUP. Performance Standards. As a conditional use, the proposcd amendment is expected to meet the general standards of the B-3 District as well as a list of more explicit rcquirements spccific to the usc, as described in Chapter 13, Section 4rA] of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Thc following is a description ofthe requirements and the proposed amendment's compliance along with somc general site design commcnts, followed by a list of the more in-depth requirements specific to the use and the associated findings. S'etbacks: Thc proposed amcndment to the CUP will still meet thc B-3 setback req uiremcnts. Parking. The CUP amendment is not proposed to alter any ofthc existing parking in terms of the addition or subtraction of parking spaces. . Access/Circulation: As the proposed CUP amcndment calls for a second drive-thru lane, access and circulation within the parking areas will be affectcd. StafT has concerns with the proposed location for the second drive-thru mcnu board and speaker stand because it will interfere with the access betwecn the main and secondary parking lots for McDonald's and the access between the McDonald's parking lot and the Super America gas station parking lot to the east of the site. As proposed, thc plan presents several issucs with the resulting traffic now of the parking areas and the location and spacing allowance of the stacking lanes. The first Planning Commission Agenda -- 04/05/05 . issue with regards to the traffic flow of the parking lot is that the proposed location of the 2nd drive~thru stacking lane would be likely be contlicting with traffic using the to two adjacent access points within the parking lot. Problems would arise when vehicles are trying to enter and exit the parking lot as well as join the queue in the 2nd drive-thru lane. As proposed, there is not enough space between the exiting accesses in the parking lot and the stacking area for the second drive-thru lane. Staff suggests that the proposed landscaped island be enlarged to extend approximately 10 feet to the east and 60 feet to the southeast, parallel to the southeast property line and parking aisle. The enlargement of this island would deter vehicles who are located in the first drive-thru lane to swing around to the second drive-thru lane at an angle and point in the parking lot that would cause traffic issues. The widening of the parking island would encourage vehicles to use the alternate access to the restaurant located to the east, beyond the Super America, thus forming a line for the second drive-thru in an east-west direction, perpendicular to the existing drive- thru lane. The extension and widening ofthe island would still provide enough space for vehicles to exit the parking spaces along the southeast property line and encourage them to exit out of the alternate access point to the east of the adjacent Super America gas station. . Additionally, directional arrows/signs and striping should be added to establish the second drive-thrulane as well as to direct vehicles to the alternate exit to the east of the restaurant. Landscaping. The applicant proposes to add a landscaped island with the proposed CUP amendment in order to accommodate the additional menu board and speaker stand as well as to provide spacing and separation between the first and second drive- thru lanes. A landscape plan has not been submitted. As a condition of approval, a landscape plan must be provided which details the proposed plantings for the new island. Lighting. The applicant is not proposing to alter the existing lighting. Signage. The applicant has submitted a detailed signage plan for staff review, showing the proposed location of the second menu board and speaker stand. The proposed menu board will be identical to the existing menu board and will measure 8.2 feet wide by 6.8 feet high. The proposed LED customer order display/speaker stand is approximately 4.4 feet high by 2.1 feet at its widest point, for an overall square footage of 4.6 square feet. The applicant is not proposing to add any additional signs for advertising, only for information and directional purposes. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow a second drive-thm. 1. Motion to approve the request for CUP amendment, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on a finding that the use is appropriate for the zoning district and the proposed site. 2. Motion to deny the request for a CUP amendment based on a finding that the request does not meet the conditions for granting a CUP amendment. 3. Motion to table the request, subject to submission of additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the CUP amendment, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. If the necessary modiiications to the site plan are made, the plan will comply with the general intent ofthe Conditional Use provisions of the B-3 District. . SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit z: Site Location Map Existing Conditions Site Plan Applicant Narrative Sign Illustrations Conditions of Approval . 3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda -. 04/05/05 Exhibit Z CUP Amendment Conditions of Approval- McDonald's 1. The site plan must bc rcvised to show an enlarged, landscaped island which better accommodates the second drive-thru queue, encouraging the vehicles to linc up pcrpcndicular to the first drive-thru lane and usc the alternate entrancc to the east of the restaurant, subject to Staff approval. 2. The applicant must submit a dctailed landscape plan for thc proposed parking lot island, as wcll as additional landscaping on existing parking lot islands, subject to Staff approval. 3. Recommendations of other City Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council. 4 '\ --- - ---.:.... " "I r 7A . . / . . ~ELLBERG'S MOB 'HOME lLE P~RJ( lEAST) i> ~. .E. 85th STREET . . 'Nj.jl\.~gn:;: HI:J - 2:.-: ~~ ~g ~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ l.J~ 5 ~I:'( :~ 5:~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~l ~~ "Il c" ":c1...l'."j ~G 5~ ~~~~ < ~~ . ~4 'O~~ ~Ii ~ ~~~g ~~ ~ 1/\2 ~ .~ ~t )o.~~ ~~ d ~~ ~~t;~ z. ~~z lJo~l"l ~t ~ ~~ t1t~ i~~l ~~ ;~~ ~ ~::J~ Ilt~;' ~ g~~ G~~~ a~ ~ ~~~ f1>~~ ~> ~~~ d',~ ~~ ~ ~~~r g ~~ ", ~c.y. ~~~g ~~ '" '" r-: .. \ \\ ] ~\ 11 .h w t t . ~ ~'.... 1. J .t .q ~ ,<. <;O/vl/f I 01'. .... " i h ~ '" ~i ~. ill o~ I~ ~ c~~ i: ~~ ~~E ~;'i <~l\ ?d ~~ ~~ ' f i Ii~ ~(t g~~ ~~ ~t ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ' .' E~ t~ ~~!D ;~ ~~~ ~~ h~ ~~ ~5 ~r &~~ c.~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .g ~.:t ~~~ \.l' H .~ J~~ ~; ~ <,- ,,; ~D') ,.....I~ ~~ tJOIaI -J.tii .-arA OAII """"" .......-.. I --..,., I ~ I I ... NOI~~:Wi:l:;ld J'43J..J.12!/I\ i;!I~IH ~nol-1J.V1\ a3.JnaO~3i;! ::113 .lOr~ "tl"/'HS ONV NOIj.Vl!l:O<:f~O~ 5,(l1'v'NOa..lW ,10 }"li:':!~OO~t1 ~H.l -321'( 'DNOlllt:JI;:i.?.;Icf.> oN" Sr~V'ld ::I~-3tH ..,.... ."7::=-............. ". , , '\" \. " ". \. '- @@o[0u~Qd]@(Q]@~ ~ :>:~ Oc 5~ s.l~ I!l< u~ re~ "'~ ,,3 ~g : ~c ~i. il II ~ .~ ~E S > ~ ~ ~~0 ~~~~:~ i~l~~ :i':U:->-;: ~1"">""~r,I') ~~~ .~ c~~ 2~~9~ \'~~~1Ii iJ~~~;J ~~\lJ ~ ~lJ2tg ~~~~~ ",g",~. li"..~l ~~G'l''' ~:A~~~ ~~3:~ ~~<ot ~~~~~' ~~~~~ ~-a;~~E; i 01... c'"""" n :>: o !i! fil i o u [;! ~ g .. S Jl .' ., '" ., a ; I~ I~II: ~d. .. i~~~1 ~ ~ :; ! i I,ia! i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I i 1;11;1 ~ ~ ~ ! ! I ~ i I dli!i '" ~ ~ .n i:) = ('.0 r~ v', o ;:: x x " ;; ; ; ~u ~ Sil ~ ~ c, ~ ~e C"\J 2~ C() & &i ! ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ .i ~ t,; tI ~~ .w; ~. ii' f; J "-.Q.. ~ ! t ~1 ~~ ~,,,Jr \~ ;':) ".....; ~..\; '\ \. .'f .: ~. t k ~~, "\ .<:...;" " t :'iJ ,..,( OJ ~J. fj ~~. .~ .;; ,1 .'ji $ ~'" "-"" ~~ i {;~(1:~':' /~~<~. ,'^'~"',~,>- ?'~ ,;/ ,>, - ~ "\~06' '. j "~ )*" ~.~~,~ "< '~r; ff I\,(~":-:~~~,,J, ' ~ .' /(". '"\.: '....M: "'::.":'.", \ . i.;:, ./ // I ~ " .... / / 'T"'~k i il i ,i/.' /;.:.~.., '\ ,."" ~'. '1'," ".. .....:,f ....- ..' '.1(,5" . ,./. . ~: ../ c" t..L~ I 1>::><:....1 ,/ /"~~< ! 'ill ..), / .,~ r, t " ./ :':::':, ::?L '-""~ ; 'i , ,,,.~,:,,.,:.,',,.-",,.,.::,.,...t,!,,'.:!I:,' .~'_,w ,;..~, .'."',' 1;;,:/.~....";",,, /< ".,. ""j~ ,.>~" '- ;~~~,/ ">I::~. \1' ~ ~~ 'H T ~ ~;;," if>' r \"< ,,"'></ /"-~,::)., r-~..ll.. I ';. ii, .mu-*'i'.... k "it .... / """.'..n.....~7 . .,-...,:/"-'. I'.A",,, ''''-\'~''.. . ::; . .....--~,,'i.t- '~,...:..'.mn+1 1\ ,.."'~~: :$,n r.:, .::/ ""'., .... ,.,.. : l,,-:~ i 1 \~~\ 'Il:i v'",, ,:,,:,..:;:;1/' /, ",<; i ' \, \, ' 0{'. ,,'.c,?//7j I \ \.... \. ,,-' -':,:,:,,0.:.. ~ if . .'. " "'... .\ ,'q~ ", '/ "'~d' '/" "- '\ \." ..." ...., ""!" ,!, /' (' -.., :; '",., .\ ~....". . .ff if} ..... ..... ,...... . /' '1~~ /" .... ... 4,' "",J! If ;/ . "'" .fj. / ...' .j;......! jf' I '-'-<. .~ ~.." ,! _, ,J. "-.'\. "'-', ,,'''%''.. 'I/~~j:/i t,'",,<:>,~,,-/ ;h {;. <:>''',' /" '.~ ,M '~!.'7~:N ' \~b/ #)/ // .. "\/, ,(\. "\~~,,} 6")~\l . .' ':to ""\/1 \~ //;> \j: ~l~~~~ ; i :d 1 1511 .; \il ~'I I::' u'muur .+- u'u ,"_ :~! j I ii~ 11 ~ ~"I ,ji .. i' , ~ ~' J.-.....~-".,,,.,""" ~ " of" L .....- ,:___.. u""',,,,,..,,.. -- ~.~; IB" "'""'""r~'""~;:~"""";~: "::",:..':,:.1,\, f E-+'8~ : l '\. '...' ~ "... ~. rn "-L ~~ !; ......... \ \. ' ~ "'i'''~ :. , , 3 . ,.i' !.!If..~."""'" ' ~ ~ ''\\ ~] Ir""'.." ~'\'\ j~~ ~~oj '" ~~B ", " ", '...... I~ ('" 11 """- t~ 9 ji~ ------:-~~~~-'~.I..----.+-__1 rnn., J;'-\I\.IIA;--I~~ _::-~~_U(, --.!'~~!~-_=.:J_-] --------~ I I I I I....:J i ..0/>1/< i I I 1 01'<(1 I -I -_. '"..........D9) ~ "NJM.J~ tH1IWI ...u; ...,;g-A 09JI' I ~ """"" .......... I ""- 1 1 .. rl()l<;;~IW~.:jc;j f'lil~ll?lM ~::IHl ,1(101-1,11#1 ~l.g;)(1C1O~J.:jt':l 3~ .lON 1'1"1'H!;> ONIf t.uIJ.VMd~:J S.LllVNOO.1W ~D }..j.21.JcI02Id ;:IHJ. .J~~ SI'lOIj.,.,.:JI4.J::ldG ONV' SI'l'v"ld ;:lo;;~Hj. l'vj.,L1J\lf1'& J..lO @l@o[0~~Qd]@(Q]@~ ......, (..... - Ii1 " " " " ; I~ , ~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i~~ ~ .. ~ i~ i ~~ ~ ~. :>: ~ c~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ j; Ill!! ~~ '>~~c ~~ '" "'~ ~ :>:~ <3 iil :>: "'~ ::~ga ~~ wll.;S U 0 , 2~ g '" L~ 0 ~ .~t~ E= ,.. :0( < ~ ~~ ~. ~ >-~g ~~ ~~ !!il ;; ,. b :z: ~ I~" j ~~~~ ,.1'( a ~~_ ~~ <I" C~C'i''> " o ~ ~ I i!!I~ ,," 2~ ~'Z ~<~ s.l~ d&g~ :ll I>l ..:(I..l ~ui <~~ ~B !.:!<f1~ -' i t; ~ '-. ~~i !!I< 0 ~" ~;~M ~~ ~E G~ ~8~ ;~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ 'H e i ~ ! I 1!11!1 ~1 ,,~ ~" ~~ FI..J ~Q/ t ::l ,~ ~~~~ ~I.J g\j~ ~1' ~<~~t " ~ ~ ~ e ~ a a r~ ~c ~ ~ I "i ~~ "t Ill. ., h~~ ~~ ~~~ ~: ~ ~~~ "~ :>: is c :q !:J ~*'B ~~ ~I~ "u f'~~l 25 so ; ::~ L I.Jt~~ ,"11 ~~ J .:>- E" ~~ ~ ~ "~~t' !2 ~ ~~ f f ~ Ii i!ll!i '" ~'l' ~2(l) ,,~ c h ;~ :lit~ ~~~~ j: I';~ ~~~ ~~ -c~ f ;0: ~:;;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ II " ~1l1; ~~ ~~ ~" I! ~:'e,,!<~ " '" f'l' gG:l~ ~~ ~~~ ~, > ~9 ,tij~~ e... ~~ ~j~ ~~ ~, ~t(\~ s~ h~~~ ~~~g~ 9 ~ ~f2 ~"'l:\l.IllI ~.t~~ > ~i;;; \1'-' ~ " ~~ ~~~ gF~ ~> j~ ,,'" ~~~~~ ~ j~ ~.:t II ~J f.i ~ 0!fil;;~ * ~ CJ~~ '.j~~~ ~jf ~~ ~~U= r:..:(~~~ d~ ~~~ ~c U ~;~ cc ~ ~ ~ 22 L:< ~~:li~ ~~ ~; ::,,;D.l-l-~ ~ ~&; cO ~ ~ ~ C ~M/-"~~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" \-: <ri ~ " , " ~ - m ';:; '~ ,~ '" \,;;t';;;rtl j/ -", "'-',.\ ~ ~ ;\ '~::~/)}~~tr~." I^~:~ ~>"; ~ ~ r; \t ...... 4' .....~~:>.. ~ ,\ "'-.i".",'(tc,," '. X ~.:= ,!j.~~ l .,i.' " " -.....; ....~ ~ ..) .~ .f " -$g m ~; :\ I ',,',\ "- >- ~ 1 I . "{" its : \ i > ~ 3 \ ;' (/"0i <~ t~ t ,1 _r" 4."1".. ~ \'" ~ l~ ~ /// ....:, ~.:: ~ t.... ~. ~ /f ,~~~: :~ - ~! ,/'~ ~ ,~. ~ ,~ .'T"tl.,............,. \" ~.',; !{/,(.~''( " "','4. (J2 lil "'"". ... '. ./.\~. ,.... '~'....., ,~t~~:. f{ 3i ~ ~ i \ ~ : / /'" """",'<'" '~i.~ ~ ~ ~ ,}.Y_--t ;. ,.r 1, ":-:f~'.'" ".~.~ :~."':-""':",." "~^,"','"". 2, '. 'g; l ' ,'.! i?r"P~~~':,.~ -~-~,,<,,'~,,>> J,~~ i / ifj' '''.,,- ",~ ~ ~ ~_l !.' # , '. ...', ~~ l' .'~I.~~,~~ '~, :/~ t ; , ,/ 0;)./' '<', /"'~'"" 'y,,, I Ii i 8j..< t " g~ ~', ',/ / ", r+f~+!;:+ ~rc"- ':; j',(~,r/A,~" I r-'-lF~!~~ \ \' !~ V 'sF'", ~l / I / , '" ~ \ \ \ ','. \\\\ \." . zt: ,~~~:;!/ / II I ".. " ~ \, \ ",\.+,1 ,,'(;:<^/ . 1 ~', '\ '\" ":~: , ..,' ". "~/' /.. /"~;;~ .~> >, ~ ','\'Jt! I . I .. . k.Jtj, . ,\, .~ .....1/ /' / "'",oe:.". ;~ :,!}. ~ .,~ j',) ~ I .. ...~~, " ~:~ ~j~ i\, ''X" /;(/", J 71." ~'" i I: ~ ..... " t: ~. ")Y- ~1 ~ . , ;;~! I r, .~~..t, j i~ jl~'\v 1 / " ~~;,' ~ ij .:. r 'ti~ jl '""~" t---.f"'"""'''''''''' -- nL \ - "i,",".,.. ;t;'lFiff""" n............,," ."...., - i:il.~ . i !""""""l";"C"""~':"'"'=,"""''''''n n..n...n",n ,- \ \/ , ~~. , t" " " \ '), 1 1\ ~'t\j, E-->' I \" "","", Jr,,\, ,.-", ~ :;""'lln+: ,'\ \.. "\ \ I d, f:'i\~~~/~'~'" .,.~. 2:;; !! "....... "'....,.. ~ Ci! :2 ~!.! ')&,\:.:~!? \) ';;<,"~' . " II I'g l ' '..!Sf ,," '",,"-'1 I',' 'I. ',x," 'it '\. i1i~..i:, ';\~'fIJrrM/)d ! '\., l,.. l \'~"(' c,~:',,'). J It;.,. ,J' \ ".~lq~~~!41Yt~:fl,~~'''f~' Ii ) .~ g: :?r--......,+ d ?i.: .. .~.. ......, 1-~ ". i-~, : t i.\" .%', ~i -,,:,\ t; y~ ilir 1\' \ ~~.2 ~t!. g . ' ;x ~l;; -l. ......--..., ~~et~ W-/iI LANDFORM iF? MINNEAPO~IS' PHOENIX March 9, 2005 Angela Schumann City of Monticello-Planning 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: McDonald's located at 100 Oakwood Drive Dear Ms. Schuman: Landform, on behalf of the applicant, McDonald's Corporation, is pleased to submit this application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment for a McDonald's Restaurant located at 100 Oakwood Drive (southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 94 and Minnesota Highway 25). The CUP amendment request is to allow an expansion of the existing drive-thru to allow a side-by-side drive-thru. CUP Amendment (Side bv Side Drive-thru) We request approval of the conditional use permit amendment, based on the finding that the request to allow a side-by side drive thru complies with the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically: 1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan designates this property as Highway Business, which anticipates commercial uses such as the restaurant with drive-thru. The adjacent streets are planned to accommodate the traffic from these types of uses and restaurant is located in compliance with the comprehensive plan. 2. The geographical area involved. The site is located at the southeast corner of Interstate 94 and Minnesota Highway 25. This area is guided and zoned for commercial uses. The expansion of the drive-thru as proposed is consistent with both the guiding and zoning. Furthermore, the existing site configuration and access are more than adequate to accommodate the proposed change. The site plan improvements will not reduce the parking on site and will maintain adequate drive aisle widths for circulation. 650 BUHfR NORTH BUILDING ,,_10 fiRST AVLNUe NORTH MINNCAPOLI'i, MN ",)~03 OffiCe: 6J 2_252_9070 fAX: 612_252.9077 www_landform.net . Angela Schumann Page 2 Re: McDonald's CUP Amendment Application March 9, 2005 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed improvements are consistent with the planned uses for this area and will not depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Expansion of the existing business will expand the tax base for the community and improve service by reducing wait times at the restaurant. 4. The character of the surrounding area. The surrounding properties are also guided, zoned and developed as commercial. The expansion of the drive-thru for the existing restaurant is consistent with the other commercial uses in the area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. The proposed expansion of the drive~thru to allow a side-by-side drive-thru will improve service times at the drive-thru by reducing waiting time. McDonalds has employed this side-by~side drive-thru at other restaurants and found improved service as a result. Reduced wait times will eliminate long queues that could otherwise back up into drive lanes at peak times. . We respectfully request approval of the conditional use permit amendment at the April 5, 2005 Planning Commission and April 11, 2005 City Council meetings for the McDonald's Restaurant, based on the finding that the proposal would comply with Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, LANDFORM* ~1(yJJ()d4, Christine Moss, P.E. /crm COPY: File MCD05002 Jerry Roper, McDonald's Corporation ENCL: Existing Condition and Site Plan Application and Fee CUP Amendment Letter Menu Board and COD . *Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net wo:rQWQJQA9'MMN\ '09\'S"S9L (~~~) xe.:l OOLS"Z9L (~~~) zntS '1M 'QQlIneMI!W lIlnoS "QA'fI UO!JeW s~t ":JuI 'Ql!JQJQA3 P'l^OJddv ,1n - 'W8~SAS S'Q'd 4l!M At~:JaJlp S8Je!l8W\ . 'S18^81 ~lj6!1 ~ualqwe O~ ~snrpe AlleJ!~ewo~ne ssaLQlj5pa 'Al!l!Q!S'^ JOOplno wnw!xew JOj S.031 N5uQ Jadns- 'SllOQ J04Jue pue IJO!Jepunoj puelS Ja~eads 6UI)S!X8 o~uo ~!1 - 'SQIOH '(P'lJapJO ,ue SW811 6 ue41 8JOW jl sliMS Aelds!p) ..I~Ol pue xei.. snld Aeldslp 8U!1 (6) 8U!N - '(P'lpnpu! 10U) W81sAS o!pne x81dnp JO x8\dw!s S8jepoWWOJJIJ . zH09 MZ L sdwlJ O'Z Aelds!o 031 p8~ '1) '\:Is 9'~ 11l6!"M d!IIS Uo!pejSljeS J8WOlSn) 8^oJdwl . sIJQl)eJado 8JO~S Aj!ldw!S . 8J!N8S jO paads 8JueljU3 . AJ~JOJJIJ J8pJO 8Se8JJUI . . J81110 1e:l!~13 uO!leu!Wnl\l aIilQOO.:l 8Jenbs puelS JalleadS/blds!O JapJO JaWOlsn~ 031 \-\-~~~---\ .S/N" . . --- -----71z----------- 1--Sl/ll-=L--\ ~-- ,,9uHC-- . iii . ~;:. AllJn 'e~3 :'~!?:;;f:: ,.".,. ~ ...:..~.-. .....;;.....:. s.PIIIUOCIOW . ~L WO:l'al!JqJaA9'MMM '09~S"S9L (~L~) xe.:l OOLS"Z9L (~~~) zms '1M 'aallneMI!lI\IlIlnoS "aA'fI uO!Jew s~t ":lu\'aWQJaA3 'SJopuaA S-Q'd pue A~ldslp 031 a4~ Aq padOlaAap sweJ50Jd aJ~MljOS jO asn Aq pa\2nleAa aq OSI~ ueJ AeldslP pu~ aJ~M1)OS 'SUOIP8UU03 'alqeJ alj1 . 'aJuanbas UMOp\un03 Sll 46noJIj\ unJ weJ60Jd WOpU~J e 5U!NasqO pu~ \Iun 841 jO ~J~q a4~ uo IjJl!MS Jjo/UO u~ 6U1.l8651.1~ Aq 8p~W aq l.IeJ A~!le\JO!lJunj A~ldS!p a4\ jO ~Ja4J ~Jlnb IJ . 6unoollsalQnoJ 1 '1 ,DE ue41 JaMOI S! aJO)eJadwa~ lU8!qwe a4~ \uaA8 a41 U! Alddns JaMod 8ljl JOj pallelSI.I! S! Jajea4 pallo~\JOJ AlleJ!~e\SowJa4~ IJ . ,(~ ,DE L>) paJaMOI ualjAA SlJe\s.aJ pu~ 'AeldslP a411:Ja~oJd 0\ S~ os (1 ,OSL <) '4514 001 S8SI~J 8Jn)eJ8dw8\ I~WalU! aljl j! UMOp ~n4s AlleJ!lewO\n~ ~!un a4\ 'l.Io!\lppe UI 'SJ!1.I0jpa18 s,~ll.In a4\1003 0\ p8Z!I!ln aJ~ (Z) suej )uaHs" pa1lOJ11.I03 AlleJ!1~~SOWJa41 . 'SUOI1!PU03 Ja4)e8M JOOPlno JOj pau51sap aJe SllUn . S8J11l1l8.:1 aAn:lillOJd . 'a~OJ1SAa~ lSJ!I a41 4l!M pajeAlpeaJ si llun a41 '1451u le Alle!:Jadsa 'AeldslP aljl jO Al!l!qlSIA 841 aZ!WIU!W 01 S~ 01 SJapJO 5ul~elln041lM lalnU!W OE Jalj~ jjO UJO) 01 paU51sap I! 85~S8W 5uI)aaJ6 alj1 . 'lIa41 Jllleld SIJIJ a41 UI4~!M 5U!lnolj 1~~8W ~ UI paSOPU8 Allnj II pu~ aJ~j ~UOJj wnulwnl~/ajeUoqJ~JAIOd Jaul.I! U~ 5UlpnpuI S8Jnl~aW ~1.I~\lllaJ l~pU~A 1j~IM paU6!S8P II A~ldllP a41 . '1Iau~46I.1q Aeldllp Illnfp~ pu~ 145!111.18!qwe SJo~!UOW AllnonUI)UoJ l!Un . '145!1unl l:JaJIP UI uaAa Al!l!q!IIA leWI~do IJajjo l!Un . '1 ,OSL 01 ,SE' jO a6ueJ 6UI1~J8do ue 41!M SleaA L L I! AJu~padxa aj!1 a5~JaAIJ '1,031 paJ ~lj6l.1q Jadnl pJe~J~d'llaIMaH All12nb 45!4 laz!I!ln A~ldl!O . 'l.Io!ll.la~je I,JaWOlsm M~Jp 01 s~l.Illq AUapq paJapJO wall lle1 . '1~1Ol pl.l~ X~l 'aJpd IAeldllp l!Un . 'aJ01I a41 Aq pallAaJ AII~nl.lew aq U~J pa~epdn 101.1 as041 'wnwlxew SJalJEJe4J QZ O~ dn Iwall nuaw alj~ jO %S8 la)epdn AII~J!lewo~ne aJeM~jOI aJe!la~1.I1 . 'IIMI AII~JljeWOln~ II!M lau!I 6 U~ljl Ja)e8J5 IJapJO 'Jo~dlJJSap JapeJ~4J QZ e 41!M Iwall nuaw jO laull 6 5U!A~ldl!p jO alqed~J I! llUn . ~elaS!Q 031 . 'aJn~nj a41 UII.IO!jeJO\ m e JO pJ~oqnl.l8w e Olllod Ja~eadl WOJj paAOW aq Pln03 5u!snolj pue A~lds!p 031 aljl )e4~ 01 u611ap 1.11 Jelnpow I! l!Un . 'luJaljed 1lOQ J04JU~ /uo!)epunoj llod J8~eads 6ul~llxa o~ alqellljOJ~a~ . , pallnfpe Plalj aq ueJ 145!a4 l!Un . llOllelllQsul SaJOlea .:I 'UO!p~jS!lel Jawo~sm S8AOJdwl . . (la~OJlSAa~ a)eJmJeu! Il:JaJJOJ jSa!ll)uap! 'Al!l~nb pl.lnol punOQlno/punoqu! paJU~4Ua 'JapJo ~eadaJ 01 paal.l OU '5'a) luolleJadO aJ01I S8!1!ldwIS . 'aJ!N8S jO paads paJueljua pu~ AJeJmJ~ J8pJO nJ41'aAPO paleaJJUI . sa6elueAp'fl leUO!leJado , A~!lenb punos punOQlno pue punoquI 410q az!wl)do Olllod Ja~~ads xaldnp pau51S8P AlleJI~snoJe u~ II ~Iun a41 'UO!llppe ul 'paJapJo SII swall nuaw 841 5UIA~ldl!p Aq aJ!N8S jO peadl saJullljua pUll ',beJmJe JapJO nJIj~ -aA!Jp aJOsua sdlalj AllldslO J8pJO J8W01Sn) 031 al!JqJ8A3 a41 i.ll SllellM SUO!le3!J!aads \eJaua~ puelS Jalleads/,{e\ds!o JapJO JaWOlSn~ 031 . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 8. Consideration of a variance to the 5 foot setback for arkin and drives to allow a drive throu h for a convenience fast food establishment. A licant: Dan Miclke/Frauenshuh Companies. (FP) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council have previously approved a plan for a planned unit development to allow various uses within the Monticello Travel Center plat. A convenience food establishment was allowed at the corner of Chelsea Road and 8t. Hwy 25 with a drive-through lane proposed along the Chelsea Road side of the building. When the Planning Commission considered the original PUO, city staff mentioned the need for this setback variance to allow for the drive~through. The Planning Commission accepted the development stage pun however, no formal action was taken to allow the variance to driveway setbacks. Within the interior of a PU 0, variances to setbacks are allowed without specific aetion by the Planning Commission. Specific consideration is required for any variance that may be allowed at the periphery of a PUD. Because the drive through lane has always been shown by the PUD to be within the setback area, staff feels that this is more of a formality or housekeeping matter rather than of significant concern. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1, Motion to allow a variance to the 5 foot setback for parking and drives along approximately 50 feet ofthe south property line of Lot 3, Block 1 of the Monticello Travel Center, to a allow a drive-through for a convenience fast food establishment, finding that the planned unit development provides for a superior development overall and that this drive through lane is needed to accommodate prior approvals within the PUD. 2. Motion to deny the variance based on the fmding that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient basis to justify approval of the variance. ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends alternative one. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Site Plan . . . . .F:. 85th . . -----=::-~ I1I(;HW -, ____ _____ ,<\ r ---------------~ . . . ~: NO. 94 ) .I ","{ ; FCli'sr ' "'f. . "if "i . . . '" w. ~ELLBERG'S MOBILE .: HOME: ~~RK lEAST) f>.' u' STREET ; .'- .l., ,. , L005 . 3: 04PM AUENSHUH COMPANIES LAKES ~J~IjJ;$ ~I-;'ECTS ~ ~ I~ U . It I 0 J,. J r, I I I ee . ~O.510 peZ2/e02 1tV0'?/05 16:00 ~. ~ . . ",.".. } I ... 11III I~ - . ..11 . . I --- ..- - -,.. ---- .- .-- (... , . c ( .._ ---J._" 20,'-0" . 1'" . . . "" . ~.III. ~. . I .... ,~ . ..... " T- ~ -- .-- ,.~. . -- . ..S~H~ . " . . ,...~ -.r' =--'''''O.AIRY ~iEN GRILL l c14ILL - MClKTICELLO, l1! .-- ~OFOQEO O~'vE ~~ LANEJPA~ ftlGlCA11!. ".....OOel) DII''tI'tWII . -..1_ .a.a ...' .~~ - - - -.. ......'.IB - ... 3-1.- ........ LII -"I lZl . . . Planning Commission Agenda 04/0S/05 9. Public Hearin - Consideration of a re uest for rezonin develo ment sta e PUD and preliminary plat approval for Poplar Hill. Applicant: Insie:nia Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Insignia Development is requesting development stage PUD and preliminary plat approval of a mixed-use development to be known as Poplar I-IiIJ. The subject site is 230 acres in area and is located south of 90th Street Northeast and west of the Groveland Development. The project, which went through concept review in October of 2004, includes a request for rezoning from its current A-O, Agricultural-Open Space designation, to a mix ofR-I, R-IA, R-2A, R-3, and PZR zoning. Issues including site design, long term use of the existing excavating business, access and circulation were discussed during concept review. The applicant has revised plans to deal with such issues. The following report includes planning statTs analysis, review, and recommendations regarding the revised plans dated March 14,2005. Land Use: The land uses proposed for the Poplar Hil I development are reflective of the City's Comprehensive land use plan. The project proposes that the subject site be rezoned from its current A-O designation to a mixture ofland uses including R-IA (single family residential), R-l (single family residential), R-2A (single family residential), R-3 (medium density residential), and PZR (performance zone residential). A portion of land located in the northern part of the plat is proposed for future devclopment. A separate review wil I be required for any development within that area. The southern and western portion of the site is planned for R-l A residential development. There are a total of 103 lots proposed within the R-I A District. This district was created for the purpose of preserving and utilizing areas with amenities such as rolling terrain, considerable vegetation cover, and visual appeal. The proposed development has effectively utilized existing wetland areas and planned ponding areas as amenities in this large lot single family portion of the development. This zoning designation is also consistent with adjoining land uses south of the area. Directly north of the proposed R-IA zoning is an area designated for R-2A, Single Family Development. The R-2A district allows for low to medium density, detached single family housing and directly related complementary uses. ^ total of 70 lots are proposed within this district. . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 The R-2A district is distinguished from the R-2 district in that it has more extensive development standards and is intended to accommodate small lot residential development in traditional neighborhood arrangements with high levels of amenities. The R-2A district is intended to serve as a buffer from higher density residential uses. In this development, the R-2A district serves as a transitional area from higher density residential uses to the north. As a condition of approval, the developer will be required to landscape all lots within the R2-A district to meet City standards. Within front yards, no less than 60% of the yard shall be landscaped. Additionally, garages within the R-2A district are to be de-emphasized by recessing them or creating side- loaded entries. A minimum setback of 78 feet from garage face to garage face shall be met to ensure adequate space for vehicles. The site also includes 53 R-l standard single family lots along the northeastern border of the site. T'hese lots are similar in style and layout to that of the adjacent Groveland development to the east. . Finally, the project includes a total of 180 townhomes within the R-3 district. This area is located north of the R-2A district. A total of four 75 unit apartment complexes (300 units in total) will be located north of the R-3 district and will be designated under the PZM (performance zone district) requirements. The following table illustrates the lot summary for the proposed project: R-3 Town homes ZR Apartments TOTA L,ot Summary 102 Lots 53 Lots 70 Lots 180 units 300 units 705 Lots The site contains 230.41 gross acres and 175.06 net acres. Below are the density calculations for the site. ross Acreage et Acreage 3.06 units/acre 4.03 units/acre . The City has considered low density as being under 3 units per gross acre or 4 units per net acre. The subject site is designated in the City's future land use plan for mixed residential uses. It is anticipated that in the future, business development could occur in the northern portion ofthe plat. This mix of uses appears to be consistent with the City's policies with regard to density and land uses. 2 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 Lot Standards: The following table illustrates the lot requirements for the proposed zoning districts: . R-1A R-I R-2A R-3 PZR Lot Area 16,000 sr avg 12,000 sfavg. 7,500 sr avg. 5,000 sr per 12,000 sf avg. unit in townhouse Lot Width 90 feet avg. !l0 feet avg. 45 feet !l0 feet !l0 Front Sctbaek 3' feet avg - 30 feet avg 1 5 feel 30 feet Special Provisions Side Setback - I louse 15 reet I 5 feet 6 feet 20 feel Special Side Provisions Side Setback - Garage 6 feet 6 feet 6 fcd 20 feet Special Side Provisions RC(ir Sethaek 30 feet/usable 30 feet/usable 20 feet 30 feet " Roof Pitch 6/12 5/12 5/12 3/12 2/12 ',arage Size 700 sf 450 sf 450 sf 450 sf Special Provisions Housc Size 2,000 sf LOOO sf 1,200 sf Nonc " Finished Size 2,000 sf 1,050 sf 1.200 sf Nonc .. rambler (1,400 sf) Foundation Size I AOO sf None Nonc None .. ',arage l,ocation No closer thwl 5 fl. in Std. setbacks No closer than front None .. ii-ont of fhlllt bui Iding huilding line of line of living splice living space Far,:ade Detail 20% brick/stone or 10% None 20% brick/stone or Standard .. if 70% is covered with \0% if70% is wood or stucco covered with wood or stucco lurage Frontage 40'1., of bldg. width in None 50% of hldg width Standard .. front-facing in front-facing \ ,andseaping Sod & two trees per lot Sod and two trees Special Standard .. in new subdivision or per lot and four requirements for four trees f{Jr corner lots trees for corner lots front yard landscaping The developer is requesting f1exibility with rcgard to the lot sizes. This t1exibility is in exchange for devclopment amenitics thatincludc grcatcr design in homes and lot layout and includes items like landscaped medians. The R-IA, R-l and R-2A districts allow for an averaging of lot sizes. As seen in the following table, each of the proposed districts are consistent with the average lot area requircmcnt: . .., .J . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 District ^ veragcIot size R-I A district 16,566 sf R-l district 20,104 sf R-2A district 10,042 sf Lots 17 mId 18 of Block 5 exist as "flag lots" whieh provide only 20 feet of public street frontage. Although generally frowned upon in a site design, staff find it acceptable in this limited situation via flexibility in the PUD, in exchangc for public mllenities elsewhere in the overall project. Lots with double frontagc on both Weston Drive and 90th Street Staff (Lots 1-5, Block 14) wi 11 be required to have access via Weston Drive only, . In review of the multifamily component, the four apartmcnt complexes and 290 surface parking stalls will take up much of the total lot area. Therc remains very littlc open space within this arc a other than the proposed clubhousc and pool. Staff would recommcnd that the overall design within this arca include additional open space opportunities. This could include basketball courts, tot lots, or walking trails. Additional open spacc or recreational opportunity areas could be accomplished by providing sufficient underground parking and thus dccreasing the amount of surface parking stalls needed. As a condition of approval, the developcr should identify on reviscd plans the area proposed for snow storage within the multifamily component. Of concern is thc area near the proposed pool and club. In addition to the usable open space, a design consideration for thc multiple family component would bc to shift the complex farther from 90th street to crcate a greater setback and fecling of spaciousness. A setback distance in the rangc of 100 feet or more would mitigatc some of the concerns that the buildings are out of character with the surrounding land uses. Within all residential areas, including townhomes, all other pert(Hmance standards will be required to be met. This will include adequate overstory trees for each residential lot and the setbacks outlincd herein, Circulation/Access: Thc mix of uses, limited access onto School Boulevard, the location of transmission lines and the location of wetlands all influcncc the overall site circulation. 'The overall road width and street sections will be subject to the review of the City Enginecr. . The developcr is proposing landscaped medians within Road I. These areas will bc requircd to have irrigation systems. The dcveloper should also provide the City with 4 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 the overalllandseaping method for those areas. Upon review and discussion at concept level, staff is comfortable with the overall layout and design of the site in terms of circulation and access with the exception of the following issues: . Staif is concerned with the ghost platted layout of the commercial shared access in the eastern most commercial area (along 90th street) of the site. Its extension will result in limited lot depths for some commercial areas as well as lot remnants adjacent to the existing building. An additional concern is the location of commereial uses next to residential uses to the east. Staff would suggest that the access be shifted to the south and be single loaded with commereial buildings along the north and a butler area along the south of the acceSS. The access drive should also line up with Weston Drive to the northwest of the site. . The City Engineer must review and approve the final street plans. Park 1 Trail: . The ordinance states that one acre of park land should be dedicated for each 75 persons in a subdivision. To estimate the population, a household size of 3.5 persons per unit for single family homes and 2.5 units for attached housing is used. Using this formula, a total of 29 acres of park land should be dedicated as calculated below: Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Household Total Persons Acres Required (1 per 75 persons) Single family homes * 408 3.5 per unit 1,428 19 Attached lIousing 300 2.5 per unit 750 10 29 acres * Includes Townhomes The proposed plat shows a 39.7 acre park in the central area of the plat. A large portion of the proposed dedicated park lies within thc transmission line eascment or delineated wetland. The 29 acres of required park land must be usable area which generally does not include land encumbered by utility lines easements unless the land is deemed to be a public benefit. Based upon the proposed park layout approximately 17 acres lies within the power company casement leaving 23 acres available for park exclusive of the easement. . The City will need to determine if a p011ion ofthe easement area, much of which is to be utilized as a parking lot, is acceptable to be included in the park land dedication. 5 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 As an option, the City could require the dcveloper to combine the 23 acres as usable park land with the remaining portion dedicated as cash in lieu of land. That contribution would require the developer to appraise the land at their cost during the time of final plat to determine the fair market value of the land. The overaUlayout of the park includes two football fields and 3 soccer fields. The acceptability ofthe park land improvements, which at concept level included four soccer ficlds and three baseball fields, as well as the proposed trail system are subject to comment and recommendation of the Park Commission. As mentioned previously, a total or 285 parking spaces are identified within the park area. The parking spaces are located within the easement area with the fields located outside of the easement. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, at least 1 parking space is required for eight seats of design capacity. Based upon the review of American Planning Association (AP A) guidelines, parking stalls required for athletic fields range from 10 spaces per field to 1 space per 5,000 square feet of parkland area. If both of these calculations are applied, the applicant would be required to provide a total of either 50 parking spaces (10 spaces * 5 fields) or 148 parking spaees (5,000/17 acres). . Based upon AP A standards, it is apparent that the applicant has over parked this area. Staff would recommend that the parking plan be revised to 100 spaces with the rest remaining as open space within the easement area. The developer will be required to designate handicappcd accessible parking on the plan as a condition of approval. Outlots: There are a total of 17 outlots proposed for the entire site. The following table illustrates the acreage of each outlot and its function related to the plat. . Outlot Acreac:c Function Outlot A 14.63 Wetland North of Street G Outlot B .68 Buffer Area Block 2 Outlot C .28 Triangular Outlot Includes Wetland Outlot D .39 Landscaping Island 1 Playland east of Block 9 Outlot E .03 Landscaping Island south of Block 8 Outlot F 4.39 Common Spacc Townhomcs 6 . Outlot G 7.64 Common Space Townhomes Outlot II 8.4 Common Space Townhomes Outlot I 39.36 Future Park Outlot J 3.29 Future B~2 Development Outlot K .1 Outlot needed for trail easement OutlotL .8 ] HOA Pool area and Basketball Court Outlot M 1.47 Wetland Outlot N 2.33 Wetland Outlot 0 .14 Buffer Area Outlot P .15 Block ] 0 Outlot needed for trail easement Outlot Q 1 Buffer Area Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 . The City must determine which outlots will be maintained through the City and which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Possible HOA outlots include Outlots D, E, F, G, H, and L. The landscaping within certain outlots will need to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other requirements described within the landscaping section of this report. There are a total of 4 off street parking stalls identified adjacent to Outlot L. Staff would recommend that a total of 10 spaces be incorporated within this location as the pool and basketball court will be a centerpiece within this area. Additional parking will also minimize parking within the adjacent residential neighborhood. Building style: As a PU D, the City has thc ability to impose design-related conditions related to building styles. The dcveloper has submitted elevations for the various housing styles. Thc exterior materials will include brick, cultured stone, and shakcs. The single family homes must meet the performance requirements as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in this report. The developer has also provided for reference a set of proposed covenants. . The developer is proposing "new urbanism" design concepts for the townhomcs and multifamily eomponcnt. The multifamily component includes four buildings with thrce stories and undcrground parking. The townhomes will include private cntrances, garages, two-story units, and opcn spacc. Private drives with medians are 7 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 proposed within the townhome component. These areas will be maintained hy the Flomeowners Association. Off Street Parking. Multiple family dwellings require two off street parking stalls per cach dwelling unit, with one enclosed parking stall per each two dwclling units. The proposed apartment complex includes four separatc buildings with a total of 300 dwelling units. As such, the apartment complex as a whole requires 600 off street parking stalls, a minimum of 150 will need to be enclosed. The submitted plans show a total of 290 off strcet parking stalls for thc apartment complex. Thc applicant has not submitted dctailed building plans for the apartment complex at this time. Staff is not ccrtain the number of enclosed underground parking stalls that will be made available. Per the ordinance, however, the site must support another 310 parking stalls. . The zoning ordinance requires two off strect parking stalls per cach townhouse dwelling unit. As mcntioned previously, setbacks between garages within the town housc component shall be a minimum of 78 feet from garage hlce to garagc face to ensure that sufficicnt area exists for cars and trucks. No off strcet parking will be requircd on thc privatc drives due to thc narrow strect design. Landscaping: The applicant has submittcd a landscapc plan. The overall plan lacks a diversity of plantings within the overall area. Staff would rccommcnd that Norway Maple and Green Ash bc rcplaced with other species such as White Ash or Silver Maple as these species are overplanted and are considcred invasive. Cockspur Hawthorn arc susceptible to fircblight and should be replaced or incorporated with othcr species. Blue I3eech and Amur Cherry are effective when us cd in clumps. It is unclear as to how these particular spccies are to be planted. Additionally, Amur Cherry should not be planted on thc edges of unprotectcd land areas (they are currently identificd near the future husincss area) as thcy are susceptible to being overturncd in the wind due to a shallow root system. Finally, the developer has identified a row of evergreen trees along School Boulevard, howevcr, staff would rccommend that this section include a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings. A buffer yard is requircd between thc commercial areas and the low dcnsity residcntial areas that meet the following standards: . 8 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 . A minimum landscape yard of 30 feet . 120 planting units per 100 feet of property line It should be noted that only half of the required landscaping within this buffer area needs to be planted at this time as the commercial area will remain vacant. The single family residential lots within the development require two overstory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require four. Trail System: The applicant is proposing a trail system from Street J to Grovcland (east of the proposed park). Additional sidewalks and trails are proposed throughout thc site as well the northeastern portion of the plat along 90th Strcet. As a condition of approval, thc trail systcm will be required to be completed during the first phase of the development. Signage: . Detailed signagc has not been submitted at this time. As a condition of development stage PU D approval, all site signage that will be used in the residential devclopment must be submitted prior to final approval and must meet the requirement of the Sign Ordinance. Wetlands: Issues related to the three wetland areas on the site are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. Grading Drainage and Utilities: The applicant has submitted grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities plans which are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. . 9 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Rezoning I. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-O to a mix of R-l A, R-I, R-2A, R-3, and PZR, as proposcd in the preliminary plat dated March 14,2005, based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning form A-O to a mix ofR-lA, R-1, R- 2A, R-3, and PZR, as proposed in the preliminary plat dated March 14,2005, based on a finding that the proposed zoning is not consistcnt with the intent ofthe City's Comprchensive Plan. 3. Motion to table the request for further study. Development Stage PIJD . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage pun based on a finding that thc proposed PUD is not consistent with the intcnt of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table the request for Developmcnt stage PUD until a number of issues can be resolvcd. Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat bascd on a finding that the plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the applicable conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat is prcmature until the land use and design issues described within this rcport are figurcd out. . 10 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Stall recommends approving the rezoning, development stage PUD, and preliminary plat applications subject to the conditions outlined herein. SUPPORTING DATA . Exhibit A - Cover and Site Location Map Exhibit B - Existing Conditions Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat and PUD Exhibit D - Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit E - Utility Plan Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit (i- - Power Point Slide Documentation Including Zoning Section Layouts Building Elevations Exhibit II - R-2A Template Landscape Plan Exhibit I - Park Plan and Common Space Information Exhibit J - Proposed Covenants Exhibit K - Proposed Townhome Association Documents Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval- Poplar Hill . 11 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 Exhibit Z Poplar Hill Preliminary Plat/Development Stage PUD 1. All performancc standards, with the cxccptions of Lots 17 and 18 of Block 5 "flag lots" shall meet the pcrformance standards pcr thc zoning ordinance. 2. The shared access for the commercial area shall be shiftcd to the south and shall be utilized as a single loadcd access. 3. The developmcnt of the commercial arca shall require a separate site plan review. Approval of the Poplar I-Jill pun shall not be considcrcd granting approval for any business usc within the site until additional plans are submitted and approvcd by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Access onto Lot 1-5, Block 14 shall come off of Weston Drive only. . 5. The City shall necd to determine if a portion of the cascment area is acceptable to be included in the park land dedication. 6. The applicant shall limit the parking stalls within the park arca to one hundred (100) parking stalls within the easement area. The remaining land area shall remain open space. The applicant shall identify handicapped accessible parking stalls within the park area. 7. The final street plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall submit the required elevation and floor plans for the apartment buildings. 9. The single family homes shall meet all performance requirements of their associated districts as defIned in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planners report. This includes a dc-emphasis on garage exposure to the public street. 10. Setbacks between garages within the townhome component shall be a minimum of seventy-eight (78) feet from garage face to garage face to ensure that sufficient area exists for both on- and off-street parking. 11. The applicant shall demonstratc that the apartment complex has the required number of off strect parking spaces per the ordinance. . 12 . Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 12. The apartment complex component shall be redesigned to included additional open space opportunity areas f()r tot lots, basketball courts, or other reereational areas exclusive of the club area, as well as green space separation from 90th Street. 13. The applicant shall identify the location of snow storage areas within the multifamily component. 14. Outlot L shall have a minimum often (10) parking oil-street parking stalls. 15. All single family residential lots within the development shall contain the required two overs tory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require four. 16. All lots within the R-2A district shall be required to have no less than 60% of the front yard designated as landscaped garden areas. 17. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan based upon the conditions and recommendations found in the planner's report. . 18. All landscaped medians and HOA common landscaped areas shall be required to be irrigated. 19. All sitc signage that will be used in the residential development must be submitted prior to final approval and must meet the requirement of the sign Ordinance. 20. Issues related to the three wetland areas on the site are subject to the review and comment ofthe City Engineer. 21. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subjcct to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 22. The applicant shall enter into a development agrcement and PUD agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Attorney. 23. The covenants and HOA documents shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. . 13 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 . 10. Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional tJse Permit PUD for Spirit Hills. Applicant: Maplewood Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Maplewood Development, the developer of the Spirit Hills project, is seeking an amendment to their PUD that would permit revisions in the R-IA lot requirements for the single family portion of their project. This project is location between the Monte Club restaurant and thc Hillsidc Farms residential subdivision. The City has revised, by PUD, its R-l A standards for both of thc previous two R-l A projeets - Hillsidc Farms and Carlislc Village. The primary issue raised by the dcvelopers is that the] ,400 square feet foundation requircment for two-story houses is too large fix builders in thc current market. . As staff has noted in previous discussions on this issue, the R-l A zoning was not designed with thc "current market" in mind. Instead, the R-l A was designed with the idea that only extraordinary neighborhoods were devcloped in those areas designated for the R-IA regulations. Nonetheless, thc City officials have expressed an interest in agreeing to the reduecd standards requcsted by the developers. The Spirit Hills requests are as follows: 1. Reduee the front sctbacks to 30 feet, from a 35 foot average. 2. Reduee the total side setback area to 15 feet from the current 2] feet. 3. Reduce 2 story foundation size from 1,400 square feet to ] ,200 square feet. 4. Reduce garage sizc from 700 squarc feet to 660 square feet. 5. Change landscaping requirement to two deciduous and one conifer, plus sod (from two trees in the boulevard per street frontage). With regard to item 1., the ordinance currently allows somc 30 foot setbacks. The averaging was inserted to grant f1exibility and cncouragc a variation in setback, rather than a regimented 30 feet as in typical single family suhdivisions. With regard to item 2., the purpose of the increased side setbacks is to rcquire some spaciousness between homes, rather than allow a more cramped building separation. The applicants have the option of increasing lot width if they arc concerned that their houses will not ilt on a 90 foot wide lot. With rcgard to itcm 3., this reduction has been allowed by PUD in the othcr two R-l A subdivisions previously. The City has thc discretion in a PUD to follow these previous decisions, or find that this particular projcct should be held to a dilTerent standard. . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 . With regard to item 4., 660 square feet would accommodate a minimum 3 car garage dimension. Staff believes that the R-l A was not designed to accommodate minimum dimensions. With regard to itcm 5., staff believes that the current landscaping standards have been reasonable, ~U1d that creating different standards for each project leads to confusion and difficulty with enforcement and monitoring. The applicant is encouragcd to apply the proposed standards to their project. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment to Development Stage Planned Unit Dcvelopment for Spirit Hills R-IA development. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the changes as requestcd, based on a finding that the changes best reflect the City's development requirements for R-IA developmcnt in the Spirit Hills area. . 2. Motion to rccommcnd approval of selectcd changes requested by the developer, based on a finding that the current standards are generally appropriate, however, some modification is necessary to ensure that the purpose of the Spirit Hills PUD is realized. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the changes, based on a finding that the R-IA regulations were established to prescrve high amenity lands for housing styles that provide significant move-up opportunities to the Monticello housing market, with the understanding that there may be a limited market for such housing at the current time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommcnd the changes. The City has not applied the R-l A rules as designcd to any project as yet. If the rules serve to delay development until the market improves for larger housing, staff s opinion would be that this was the intent of the R-IA concept. However, if the City believes that some reduction in standards is appropriate, only the two-story house sizc should he considered, and in that case - only with an increase in required total finished square footage. The other changes overly complicate the regulations which have been applied equally in the other R-l A projects. . 2 . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 04/05/05 SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: . . Zoning District Standards City Building Standards Matrix Applicant Matrix ,., .J . . . . . . SECTIUN : 6A-I: 6A-2: oA-3: 6A-4: 6A-I: 6A-2: 6A-3: 6A-4: CHAPTER 6A IDA "R-IA' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Permitted Accessory I Tses Conditional Uses PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-IA" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The R-l A District is distinguished from the R-I District in that is has more extensive development standards and is to be located in areas of higher natural residential amenities, including such conditions as woodlands, wetlands, and significant vievl's. PERMITTED USES: The following arc permitted lIses in an "R-IA" District: [A] Thos\;': Llses permitted in the "R- I" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. PERMlrrED ACCESSOR Y USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R- I A" District: [AI Thos\;': permitkd accessory uses as allowed in the "R-I" District. under the same conditions as listed in that district. CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uscs in an "R-IA" District (n:quircs a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 ot' this ordinance). [Aj Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-I A District. under the same conditions as listed in that district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 6A/l . ~83 N'"';"~ ~\,f")~ 0'10\0'1 NNN r;);;;-;;;- IDIDID r--r--r-- '-' '-' '-' i:: "9 E ~ i:: ...... ;;; bJ) :I:~ .0:-= ~ O~~ ~ ~ 00. Z " l-I r.rJ. ~ Q ~ -< l-I ~ Z ~ Q.... tij~ ~~fd otirg :j~~ ~C/J . U~~ l-IZ~ ~~~ o ~ ;:;E tll~ II ~ I ~]~ ~]~ ~]~ 10';';" ~~~ ~"".;:: ~~~ ~"".;:: :" ~ _g.s !5 u I~~ o "0 o . 0 o "0 ~ .'0 ';;~... ';;~... ,;;]... a . ~:s ';;~... 4) ': ~ ~i~ ~".8 ~~-.:i.< ,,- u 15S.c ] j ~; lj"ll 8e ~ ~I! N 0 N~b N60 .0 R"8 .oU~ -d'~-; "8.........-(1) t R~ t " II R.B II ~-~ ~ {~~ 00 00 ~l'!~ ~oo~ "'~~ ",1::~ "'~~ "'~~ ..- !E ... ..r 6' ~I It It It It It <: It e e I ~ ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ::2 ..., ~ I ~ ...lII It It It It It :;; It ~ ~j ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., z ..., ~ Jl .~q '2 ~ ~ ?f~~...~ ~ ~ f :;; g 8 0 ,- ~ al 0 ,..... ~ :;; ~ ~ "" " "~ i.< "" t" l'Ji! i.< ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ z i;l "sdf z '" "'- roil I lJ,.. bl,\ d ~ &: OJ) ~ "" e -< .51 e ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ is -< '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" ~ ~ 0 '" 0 '" ~ ~-< ~ '" ~ ~ ~ == ;;.l'Ji!g8 ;;.l'Ji!]8 oS ~ u =:.j:o E u =: E <: ;Ei5'O~ :;; ;Ei5'O~ ~ ~ ~ ] Z l'Ji! 'Ii'. z l'Ji! "Ii'. Z Z z g!lo g~oi.< 1 Sf""- :J; ~.... CI")~,:a en ~.~ '" I .r) '" '" '" ~ '" ~. s '~ s .~ s "~ s .~ s '~ s '~ "'", ,,' ~ <'I_ n ~ ,,' Nt:; = '" '" '" '" ~ ; ~i :! ,,' ~ 8 :! 8 8 ;n ~ '" ;;; ,.., ff) ~ ; I] ~ ~ ... ... ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ... -< '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 18 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" 5 z Z d <'I "f ~ r-. = ,g ... ~ '" j] ~ <: ~ <: ~ 00 Z ~ Z Z ~ "'- ~J!E a::~ It:a It It It It~ It o ::! '" 1:1 g =: 0 8~ g cl5 ff)~ ,..,~ ,.., ..- I~ ..r ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ... 0 ~ ~ e ;I; ... " It It It It~ ~g Ii: a .eI Ii: .eI .eI ~ ..., =: .,..,~ i ~~ ::;: ): ::;: ::;: u '" ~ ~ <0 ~ ~ <0 ~ f~ - "'" a It It It It~ It ~~r:: ~~E 0 =: '" R~ '" 5 r-.J! ,..,>~ ,.., :> ff) ,.., ,.., <: <: ...l i -! " It ~ ~g j~ It ~_ It It It It 0,,1:: ~ !!: 0 '" ~ ~ 00 :> 00 ~ ~~ <: <: :g ;';;"", t;~ ... ;,;; "'" ... ~ 3 ~ '" '" 't; '" ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< .!!: to ~< ::::<: :! ,:<: :! "f ~t! .. -< ... ~ ,.., .,. ~ ~~ =0: .. =0: , =0: =0: =0: =0: lOB ~ ~ 11 --- :EJ Jl ~ g ... ~ - 5' E g ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ;::: -g "~ a ... ~ s;>-,~.. ~J g r: <<;>g. -N "'..::: .s ~ "'6 QQ \!ja:: ~ Cl:S 8~ ~;::; -;;:; e is "C - .lI!' = :a ::I ~ ~ .a ~ s ~ .g OJ e u ","'= '6:: "8 -8",., ,; 'oJ € 8 8 s =.. "" ~ 8 ~ 1ll "u "C 8 ~ = t;"CI Q)~ 8 ~C6 -g..s .u:; "'. '" '8 ,rJ.s ;;, "'0 gp :E ~';"" Q.. 1ll .~ = .. 0 "'t::I c= ~ ~ ;:; ;a N Q..~ ua 11 ~,rJ ,g a: ",=01:: gp"".... "',= '" 0 '" g "'0 "~= ~ ~.a -S '" '" "" <l> = '~.. '" . e ,;:"g 'S ~ ~ g. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,12 ~!J Q ::a - E........ ~"'::f 0"'0 1ll '" ~~.E ~~ - 1ll;a ] ~ ~ ~:! 81 ~ ,~~ " '" _ '" =- "'!<I " ..!=l '" !<I ___[ ~ !J:::1al ~'" s~.,s"" S ~ ~ ~: r.n ..c::; Cli ~ 0 .5 ~.s ..s 0Jl@"~ ~-S ~~;:;~ M "" .... "9 >< 8 .g "S "'0 _ "~I:: p.; '" 0 ~ '" 0 e 0 ~ . =~ '" ilet'" ..,.:;. ~ll J, "g .e ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 15 ..s 1 '::; ~ 1rl... .E! "S l-> "I:: -g e .... -s VJu 0.-.-(;; t'~ ::IO~ ,;.8 Ci::~O;S< .a ~ E~ OQ 8 i;1 0 :; '";; :g ~ ~ 1 "8"~ ~ o<:l ~ -:- fI"l I" 'i3 ~ cu --:-- .o;:g "s..= ~ ~ gp '" ..... 2 '" a "9 'E co !S "= ~ s '";; ~ ~ "51 g g: ~ "8,g ~ t'i ::; "5 ~ 1!,9.,s = N-~",c_-5Q--S ~"'"E ~ ",~_...1rl~"'O ~~0~~"'O8< '" ~"'~Mg~~;a~~Jle"~8~><=- ~ '-' .,D1l) +-lOo~o = iU , 15 'oJ "'0 =.. ~ "0:; - .... <l::" ~ E 0 ~ "'0 '" "., '" UO -" ",";;: = 0 ;>-, is .- .8 = ~ "'-SUe "'''';;:;0 ,="':G.... ~ Cl ~ 3 "" '" ~ ~ "C 4:: ~ l:l i:>:: Z 'gj 0;E S9:G0::l&:o""'O"'''''E !3 a"- ~ "~ "8 :: -: ~ '" '" 'oJ ~ ;;,"Z .; 'I.> ~ o"~ N g.,9 - ,;,~ ~ '" ~ ..<: "E = ,rJ A U Cl '" ~;>-'"8 't:l 0 "" ... "S ti =~J.""",~2u1u"~-g..!=l-iS .ee"="8=-S~=.8",,,,,"'OuujJ~ Ze..'8 .; .a-"'='I.>~", '" !::i "'0 ::: ~ ... ... '" 1ll '&"8 (;j - 0 ~ - -g ~ ~il ai2~~~ !;-~~~ ~~~~ = "" Q'" tl '" ,rJ ;>-, "" '" '" '" k: 0 U 0 oa~O~"'e-,,="',rJ-.. ...><..c: '- '" .. '" ~ "6h '" - - ~ '" U l5ilB~~~;i~~i~,g~o~~ ., >I oa U ~ e '" '" - iil "'0 '" '" = =.. 0 .::: ~ .,." f<"8 -S ;>-,..5l! ~ ~ '" ,rJ .a !S u ;s -g ~u-~u ~~ ._U+-lU~::IO~ is ~ "S = E 's :g i3 0 6 g. a ~ 5 5 E ,0 -" ~:::l~"'>I'~;~'Bu~~e",~ud-~'" ,rJ,o--l:j"'=U =~"'O"!::l3 ~;>-,~~n~:G..i~~~~.E!~fitQ.. ... ~ !<I ~ .. '" ... "'0 0 ~.. ~ u 0 " ~ '" =~ "'~pS!<l~<uQ.."'O~Zl:ll:l'" ZI~~~~a~~l:l~i~;ag~~~~ u"t;su",:::1~"'O~5.",e~~' ~~~~~e~~;a~~~~~:G:G~ i !S .. - ... - g = - 1ll o,~ '" .. e e u g-e g e~.,; = '::>!Sell g~<<z ""6g.su,,~oa~-"" Q..=--~ <~g?lll~~l:l~Jl::3~~~~~"~~ ~~"~..",=~~~"'o~",o_== ,c, "~ '" ~ "" l-> U i5 = =;C"~ :G ..c: fr ~ ~ ..5 tl '" !l! iil .8 U "6h:S '6 il e "S u"O:; ,~ ~~~~~i;1~8~8~<~~~~ = = '.,:I ~ ] t '" .. oS ~ ! .. o ;>, a s .. ~ &t 8Be ~ ..-....-.---.-- __.-....-...-..~...-lN~"I!f' 't)'Ct""'OOe\...... '1""'1 '1""'11""'l....-l ------......------'-'''-''--- ~ ~ . c: 0 (/) .- (/) > -0 cv !r.... ~ CO -0 -0 c: cv CO (/) - 0 c (j) a.. 0 c: 0 C/) !r.... -0 '5 0) CL '- Q) ctl '- (/) -0-0 CV U C Q) . 0 2 C/) c: (f)O co o<!S Q) 0.. - J:: e - c: +-'0.. c: CV C/) Q) CV E ~ J:: -0 +-' (/) a.. o C/) 0 0::: ,- CV .... ~ ~ CV (j) 0 > -r-o::: 0 CV -0 - 0 c: ill N U -0 - 0 c: 0 0 ~ ~ CV a.. co ~ . E Q) '" C.u OJ '" ~ EU'" ._ U)""'O ",u<:: .- '" '" ::;:;:"'- ....l(/) '" u ro u '" '" en ci u a5 2:- o '" '" ~ u <( .'= ::;:;: '" 'E '" u '" '" en 0) .'= ~ o E OJ E :~ ::;:;: u ~~ u '" '" ~ -'" c3l'l '" @' u 1: Q) ~ 0 TI ~I u: '" '" Jil'l Q)- u .- '" '" ~v !.LO 0)_ "'.s;: :o,~ = Q) ~I -.s;: o u ~~ r........ "- '+- "'OOVicJ)-OO ~~$E~~tsn ~~b8n:cn~~ -g~:::w15~~o (l)C\.l 0 o...~';:'~ -'" ~ <) rn rn "'fl 0:: '" (/) u: CD c: ~~U)- <1> '0 e 'C3 ~ :::J 0 ~ "0 ~ O>~ LL.",,,,E"'X 0-0:9 -0) Q) '<t:O~ JD6 ~...- ~ (1)~>'O ffJ 0<>/l0 ..t::lQ)CO .s;: , N~ (/):V Q)(J) o~"'CQ)~C: Q) ~ .... Q) \+- - Co 0'- '~ ~ 'g ~ '0 E :g ~ E 'lij 1! 01-0 ....l85l~N U <( Z <( Z ~ ro o 0_ :g(/) g""g 8 ~.8~"::: g O(fJO\+- ........ o:><oo,!!l!!!. N .~ ::: (f!. -g ,,-00 0 co I'- ~ (/) ::R .'!1 r ... NO (/) N <D Q) :0 u (i) (i) '" '" Q) '" (i) ..cQ) .s;: 0 '" Q) 0 ell ... :~ .'t 0 0 0 ';;: <( 0 0 0 u:: LL. N N 0 N "" ro u '" Q).t::l 0::: V (/) "" Q) U U'" ,_ .t::l '" (/)V 'E (/) '" -0 c m "" U5 - u <:: '" - e.t::l 0 ....l LL.V E (/) OJ E :S ..c :2 -0 ~ <5 ....l 0)13 ,;; ';::: ",- o.~ NO <:: o :.= en ~ ~ 5<( o LL. m Q) ~ - o ....l -'" '" <) -0 rn ._ .0 ~ID ell u: CD .m .S:: w :2< o_ R(/) :g~g 8 ~.8#"::: 2 o~oo,!!?!!!. N .~ := *- -g ...00 0 co I'- ~ '" ::R'!1 r ... NO (/) N <0 (i) (i) 2:- 0 0 00 "<t_ o- N(/) ~ ,,-:N _..'!1 - Q) LL..t::l om LL.:O r')eIl 0 m => r')eIl => m '0 I- 4;: o N .'= Q) ::;:;: ~ . 0 ;:'I Q) _ 0) LL."'~ 1,{)Q)t:. r') > <( Q) 1-0) LL. '" ow OJ~ LL. Q) wO) o"'~ 0........ oQ)~ - > ~<( 0::: ~ '" Q) ,_ 0) ::;:;: '" " ro CDl'l <U '0 I- 4;: <0 ~ Q) _OJ LL."'~ owt:- r') > <( Q) I-OJ LL.'" OW OJ > <( !.L wQ) 0) om~ o~1'- oQ)~ .. > ~<( 0::: ~ (i) o o o N (i) o o o N us:V 0:0 o E :& ,,= Q) 2'" :J - 0 ;:'I U5 o o o N (i) o o o N (i) o o o N _ 2:' <ii w-> <:: Q) oW....l ~.~~ ~(/)2 '" Q) ,_ 0) 2 ~ _ '" <Ol'l Planning Commission Agenda ~ 04/05/05 . 11. Public Hearinl!: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Zoninl! Ordinance rel!ulatinl! open and outdoor storal!e. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City has been working on an amendment to the regulation of outdoor storage. A task force was established that included several property owners in the industrial park, as well as City officials, The attached ordinance draft is the outcome of that work, . This memo is intended to summarize comments of the Task force from its joint meeting in January, and present an ordinance reflecting their discussion, The City has three industrial districts - 1-2, Heavy Industrial; I-I, Light Industrial; and I-IA, Light Industrial. The 1-2 District is intended to provide for those industrial activities that may need the most separation from other types of land uses or public exposure, The I-I A District is at the other end of the scale, with special requirements for building materials as well as additional requirements for site planning. The I-I District sits in between the two, with the lower intensity uses but without the extra building and site standards, Although the discussion at the Task Force meeting was more general in nature, there was some acknowledgement that the different districts justified differential treatment of outdoor storage. The draft ordinance utilized a framework for a new ordinance addressing this issue which addresses the difTerences in the purposes for each industrial district. The proposed regulations are rclaxed for the 1-2 District, including an allowance of outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use, avoiding the requirement for a CUP review. For the 1-1 District, the regulations are relaxed in terms of interior setbacks, but a maximum of 50% of lot area has been suggested for this District. For the I-IA District, the regulations are much more strict, including a limitation of 20% of the building size. This regulation is intended to allow limited storage (such as that recently approved for Twin City Die Casting), but focuses on the I-lA District's objective of a higher standard for building design and site planning. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Zoning Amendment regulating open and outdoor storage, . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that the amendment better reflects the City's industrial zoning needs, and economic development philosophy. 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/05 ...... ~ 2. Motion to rccommcnd denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the proposcd amendment is inconsistent with the City's industrial development needs. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Stailrecommends adoption of the ordinance, based on the recommendation of the Task Force. SlJPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance . . 2 . . . IIA CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2005~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2-2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO OUT DOOR STORAGE WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2-2 Definitions of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance-City of Monticello is hereby amended to include the following definition related to Outdoor Storage: Outdoor Storage: The keep of materials or equipment on a parcel of land for the purpose of transporting, using or employing such materials or equipment at a future date at another location, either on- or off-site. The keeping of motorized vehicles that are not licensed for operation on the public roadways, or other equipment that is not capable of self-powered movement (such as trailers), shall be included in this definition. Section 2. Section 3-11 B OUTDOOR STORAGE, shall hereby be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance as follows: [A] The following activities shall not be considered outdoor storage for the purposes of these regulations: a. Parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks, parked in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. b. Parking of company vehicles, including trucks, vans, and other similar vehicles, with the exception of semi-truck rigs which shall be subject to separate regulations. c. Semi-truck tractors and tractor-trailer rigs (not including detached trailers), when such tractors and tractor-trailer rigs are parked in the rear yard. d. Semi-truck trailers located in designated loading docks, or otherwise in the active process of loading or unloading, for a period of not more than 72 hours. . . . e. Trash handling equipment, provided such equipment is located within an enclosure in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. [B) The following table details the processing requirements within the 1-1A, 1- 1, 1-2 District: DISTRICT 1-1 A 1-1 1-2 Processing CUP for accessory CUP for accessory Permitted as an Requirements use use accessory use Front Setback Rear line of building Front Building Front Building Setback Setback Side Setback Equal to building Zero feet setback Zero feet setback requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear and side yard and side yard behind buildinq behind buildinq Rear Setback Equal to setback Zero feet setback Zero feet setback requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear and side yard and side yard behind building behind building Area Limitation 20% of building floor 50% of lot area, No limitation as an area, maximum maximum accessory use Screening from 100% screen via 100% screen via 100% screen via Street and landscaping and landscaping and landscaping and Residential Uses decorative fencing decorative fencing decorative fencing required required req u ired Screening from 100% screen via No screening No screening Industrial Uses landscaping and required if abutting required if abutting decorative fencing 1-1 or 1-2 building 1-1 or 1-2 building required Occupation of Not permitted Permitted, with Permitted, with drainage and utility acknowledgement acknowledgement easements of restoration of restoration requirements requirements . . . Section 3. Enactment. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of 2005. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: By: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Planning Commission Agenda- 04/05/04 . 12. Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a reauest for an amendment to the Zonin!! Ordinance relatinl! to relocation of billboard si!!ns. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello is currently working on plans for the construction of a new interchange between Interstate 94 and CSAH 18. A portion of the project involves the acquisition of the property in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange to accommodate the location of ramps and stormwater ponding. In addition, sanitary sewer trunk lines arc being installed through the subject area. The site is currently occupied by a A VR ready mix concrete facility and three separate billboard sign structures. The signs themselves are prohibited signs according to the City's zoning ordinance. If they are removed for any reason, the ordinance does not permit their replacement. However, as a part of the acquisition, the City has a responsibility to provide for the relocation of uses displaced by the new public use. Occasionally, this relocation involves physical relocation of the use, and in others, it may involve a monetary payment in lieu of physical relocation. . In this case, the monetary payment would be expected to be an excessive amount that would endanger the feasibility of the project. As such, the attached ordinance amendment would allow for the relocation of billboards that are displaced due to City acquisition for utility or highway projects. Instead of requiring the immediate termination of the billboard use, the ordinance accommodates the relocation, with the condition that the lease can not be extended beyond the earliest termination date in the current lease. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Billboard Relocation I. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment, based on a finding that the ordinance provides for a reasonable alternative to the economic impacts of immediate removal in cases of public acquisition. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment, based on a finding that the City's ordinance prohibiting the replacement of non-conforming signs to be consistent with the City's policy of seeking the termination of non-conforming uses and structures. Planning Commission Agenda - 04/05/04 . ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the ordinance as a reasonable alternative to the current policy. The ordinance would result in a theoretical delay in the removal of billboards within the City limits, but would facilitate a more economical approach to achieving this goal. Moreover, when the economic realities of billboard removal are factored in to the interchange and/or utility projects, excessive costs could jeopardize the project altogether, ultimately frustrating both the infrastructure development and the billboard removal. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance Amendment . . 2 . . . I2,A City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-9 [D] OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR THE RELOCATION OF CERTAIN NON-CONFORMING SIGNS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 3-9 [D] is hereby amended to add the following: IDI 4. Notwithstanding any other requirement in Section 3-9 of this Ordinance to the contrary, off-premise or advertising signs may be relocated as follows: (a) This section shall apply exclusively to off-premise advertising signs of 200 square feet or greater that have a specific, written, fee or leasehold interest in the property on which they are currently located, and which are required to be removed pursuant to City acquisition as a part of a City utility or road project. (b) Such signs may be relocated to another part of the same parcel on which they were located at the time of the acquisition, by City Council resolution. (c) Such signs may be relocated to another vacant parcel subject to the application for, and approval of, an Interim Use Permit per the requiremcnts of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (d) In addition to any other requiremcnts or restrictions deemed appropriate by thc City Council, the owncr of such relocatcd sign under (b) or (c) above shall not enter into any Icase that extends the duration of sllch sign beyond the soonest termination datc to which the sign is subject at the timc of the relocation. Upon such date, the relocated sign shall be removed and shall not re-established within the City limits of the City of Monticello. (e) The owner of any sign relocated pursuant to this section shall enter into an agreement with thc City of Monticello providing for the date of removal, and the terms of any lease or other contract governing the relocation. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. ....... ...,. . . Dennis R. Jordan 3214 90th Street NE Monticello MN 55362 March 31, 2005 Mr. Dick Frie Chair, Monticello Planning Commission Mr. Jeff O'Neill Community Development Director Mr. Fred Patch Building and Zoning Director Monticello City Hall RE: Proposed Poplar Hill Development Dear City Planning Officials, Following are some thoughts and comments I would like you to consider as you proceed with the approval process for the Poplar Hill Development. First are land use and density, the area proposed for development was originally planned for single family residential use until recently. The new proposed plan for high density apartments, town homes, and commercial is a huge departure from what had been agreed upon by the Joint Planning Board. These changes have been made without input or comment by the township residents. In particular the inclusion of four, three stories high 75 unit apartment buildings and 180 town homes on the west border of the plat next to existing acreage lots of township residents is inappropriate and troubling to the township residents in the area. This high density development would be much better situated near the eastern border of the plat along SchooIBoulevard closer to Highway 25 and existing commercial development. This brings up the issue of traffic. This development will generate thousands of vehicle trips per day. Even with the extension of School Boulevard much of that traffic, perhaps even most, will use 90th Street for traveling to and from the project. Having the highest housing density next to 90th Street and at least one less stoplight on the 90th Street path to the freeway will ensure this outcome. The current 90th Street is an unimproved township road with no shoulders and was never intended for high volume traffic. If the city has plans for improving the road along with the construction of the development, they should be discussed with the township residents prior to approval of the development. If no plan for improvement exists, it is a serious oversight in the cities planning process and will directly contribute to safety concerns along 90th Street. Such things as bike traffic, pedestrians, poor sight lines, and no passing along much of the roadway involved will lead to unfortunate accidents that could be prevented. The last issue that needs thoughtful consideration is the request to rezone approximately 25 acres to Business zoning. This requcst has a long history. Enclosures (1) and (2) provide background .... and history on previous actions on the request which was denied by the Township. It is clear ~ from the previous denial that the current operations on the site were not properly approved as a permanent use and do not by any means meet standards for business zoning. Both the Schulender operation and the Gould towing/impound lot are clearly industrial in nature and do not belong in the middle ofresidential areas. Enclosure (3) is photographs of the site taken from across the street from a position on our property. They show the industrial nature ofthe site and the total lack of effective screening as required by both city and township regulations and the Temporary Use Permit issued in 2002. In summary, we feel the Gould towing/impound lot was moved to the site illegally and should not be allowed to remain, the Schulender construction office was given tacit approval by the Township and could be allowed to remain for an indeterminate period if the material handling operations were curtailed and appropriate and effective screening was actually permanently installed. The bright blue fence on top of the berm is an EYESORE. To continue with the gcneral idea of business zoning in the area, the requested 25 acres is much too large an area to consider in this location. It is an area that until most recently always been designatcd for residential uses and is not contiguous to any other commercial areas. There are many other appropriately designated commercial areas in the city waiting for developmcnt, in particular the areas along thc 1-94 and Highway 25. A small area within the development such as Outlot J might be desirable as a commercial site reserved for personal services such as day care. This could be beneficial to the area but a large group of marginal business operations will definitely degrade the areas' desirability. . Thank you all for taking the time to read these comments. I hope some of the thoughts expressed will resonate with your own and that we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory outcome to this approval process. Sincerely, {!~ Dennis R. Jordan Enclosures (3) . ,......-- . . . MONTICELLO JOINT PLANNING BOARD AGENDA AND 5T AFF REPORT Wednesday. July 10.2002 7;30 pm Monticello Township Hall I. A. Approve minutes of May 1,2002 meeting (enclosed) B. Additions or corrections to tonight's agenda II. Review and adopt temporary use permit- GARY SCHLUENDER LOCATION: Part of the E 1/2 ofSW 1/4 of Section 10, Part of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Section 15, all in Township 121, Range 25. Tax # 213-100-103400 & -152100 REVIEW- As the Board knows, 5chluender's request for rezoning and a conditional use permit were denied at the May meeting. At the same time, the Board directed staff to prepare a T cmporary Use Permit based on the discussion at the meeting. As this was all accomplished at a public hearing, staff have not sent out new notices for a new public hearing. Copies of the proposal, this report and the May minutes will be provided to Mr. Schluender and the neighbor who has inquired. ACTION- Will depend on your review of the permit (enclosed). It should be adopted as written, or amended, and valid when signed by Mr. Schluender. If the Board makes several changes, and they are clear, it could be adopted pending completion of a final draft and Mr. Schluender's signature without having to wait for another meeting. III. Other Business? E..AJCL (I) . . . MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA JOINT PLANNING BOARD Meeting of May 1,2002 MINUTES (Informational) The May 1,2002 meeting of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Joint Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 PM by Pat Sawatzke, Chairman. Members Roger Belsaas, Franklin Denn, Clint Herbst, Bill Youngs and Tom Salkowski, Planning Board Administrator were present I. A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2002 Meeting Denn made a motion to approve the April 3, 2002 meeting minutes as written. Herbst seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Additions or Corrections to Tonight's Agenda Salkowski stated he had a couple items which could be addressed under "Other Business". He stated he received a letter regarding the pending lawsuit with Golden Nugget, wanted to discuss Kjellberg's West and dates for possible June and July board meetings. Belsaas made a motion to approve the agenda with the additions under Other Business suggested by Salkowski. Youngs seconded the motion. VOTE; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. Public Hearing - (;3ry Sc.hlllender LOCATION: Part of the E 1/2 ofSW 1/4 of Section 10, Part of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Section 15, all in Township 121, Range 25. Tax # 213-100-103400 & -152100 Petitions to rezone 25.27 acres from AG General Agricultural to B-2 General Business and a Conditional use Permit to allow temporary storage of vehicles awaiting repair, inside and outdoor storage as regulated in Section 609 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance. Sawatzke noted members of the Board conducted a site inspection at Schluender's location just prior to this meeting along with four residents present at the meeting tonight. Salkowski reviewed last month's meeting; there was a petition by Schluender to rezone 25.27 acres from AG General Agricultural to B-2 General Business and a conditional use permit. Now that the Board has made it's site inspection, it is time to consider one of several options. Rezoning 25 acres to B-2 General Business for this use would not comply with the current land use plan and labeling this as auto repair or parking facilities may be stretching the definition of such uses. The use appears to be primarily an impound and storage lot. Rather than rezone 25 acres, the Board could consider rezoning one or two acres surrounding the building. If the Board felt the use belongs in an Industrial district, then rezoning to I-I would require that the process start over, new notices would need to be sent out Salkowski noted that I-I would not comply with the Land Use Plan either . . . MOAA Joint Planning Board Minutes-May 1, 2002 Members of the Board could deny the rezoning and state a date the business has to be removed, and the stored vehicles need to be removed, If this doesn't happen in a timely manner the County Attorney becomes involved, Salkowski stated Temporary Use Permits have been discussed. He explained the County has used them before, primarily in the instance where mobile homes are moved in while a home is under construction The situation does not fit perfectly under the provisions of a temporary use, but considering the situation between this Board and the City, it may be the best solution for now After last month's meeting Salkowski stated he doesn't have a strong recommendation He stated he is leaning toward the temporary use mainly because this area is residential in this board's Long Range Plan as well as the City's, but now there have been indications from the City that may change. Belsaas shared his observations noting he has driven by the site several times, He stated the City's plan shows this land as residential, but there is a commercial strip on both sides of Chelsea going toward this location. Would this type of business fit into commercial? He stated the huilding and vehicles are very well screened at the moment and things are nice and neat. Belsaas stated the only unsightly thing he saw was the demolition debris further back on the site. Sawatzke stated he preferred looking at the demolition debris rather than the bright blue fence. Sawatzke asked about the letter from the building inspector. He asked ifhe was stating there was no permit for the building. Salkowski stated he was referring to permits for the plumbing, improper change of use for the building, etc. Schluender stated he spoke with Denn and Youngs at the site inspection and stated he has concern for the current buildings on the land because he thinks this may be his last large mining activity on this site. He would like to have the land zoned commercial so that there is no question that his business office and contractor's yard can remain when the mine is closed Members of the Board stated the shop is an adjunct to the gravel pit. Belsaas asked if there were stipulations for reclaiming the pit Salkowski stated there is a reclamation plan but no deadline for closing the pit so there is no urgency related to the shop. There was discussion of the 25 acres using up a lot of road frontage and how it would be better to keep this as small as possible until it is determined where the road will go. Belsaas and Herbst agreed a Temporary Use Permit would be the way to go because of the uncertainty of where the road will go and stated screening the fence would be a good idea too Sawatzke stated before they can approve re-zoning the Land Use Plan would need to be considered. If a temporary permit is issued, limits should be placed that would prohibit any more buildings on site unless this improper use is removed. This would only be in effect during the temporary use. Belsaas stated this is not a junkyard and the idea is to prevent junk cars and to limit the time, If conditions are not met this temporary use could end. Belsaas and Sawatzke complimented Schluender on the appearance of the site. 2 MOAA Joint Planning Board Minutes-May 1, 2002 . Youngs stated there is no reasonable way to re-zone this industriaL Even to zone it commercial with all that's going on is questionable. Salkowski stated he received no response from the City in regard to this situation. Schluender stated his is a step above those other storage areas. It is similar to an impound lot and short term in comparison to others He stated if it would help he could limit the number of cars there and the time each one spends there. Belsaas stated he doesn't want it to become a problem with junk cars stacked 5 high. Denn stated the Board should determine a maximum number of vehicles allowed. Herbst suggested limiting the number of cars to whatever fits on the gravel surface - not on the sides. A maximum number of vehicles allowed by the Board would make it easier for the property owner to implement stated Denn. Sawatzke asked if there was any input from the audience. Dennis Jordan - I feel the comments I am hearing are going in the right direction - no spot zoning The people that live around this area need to be considered. A temporary permit with reasonable restrictions would be agreeable. .Jim Moore - A temporary permit until things like the lawsuit get settled would make sense and then try to stick with what has already been planned for the area Dennis .Jordan - It would be nice to put some vines on that blue fence. . Schluender stated J\Ilr. Jordan gave him some good ideas for vines that are fast growing. He also stated if it will bust the deal he can move the fence down below the berm. Youngs and Belsaas stated they both felt the fence was a good thing right where it is. Herbst stated he would rather look at Schluender's place then what some of the developers are putting up Salkowski stated he could draft what the Board wants in the Temporary Use Permit and bring it back for the board's review and approval at another meeting to include thoughts from tonight's discussion. Schluender asked what would happen if he wanted to place a building on a different 80 acres. Sawatzke stated it would depend on what you want to use it for - cows, storage of equipment? The current use was moved in improperly, and the Board has a duty to enforce the law By disallowing new buildings until this matter is permanently resolved, there is an incentive to remove the use if Schluender needs something else. Schluender stated he wants to keep the tenant. Could there be an extension? Is it conceivable to continue to renew the permit? Members of the Board stated yes, however, once the lawsuit is over and a plan is in place, there will be no justification for a Temporary Use Permit. At that point, they will look at the land use plan and determine if re-zoning is a possibility. There was discussion about denying the re-zoning. Schluender asked if the permit would be for 5 years. Sawatzke stated that is not temporary. Youngs stated the area is zoned residential and this can't exist in residential. The Board would probably give you a year or close to a year notice if the permit was going to come to an end This would at least get you through the present. When the lawsuit is settled, you would know what you can do. Sawatzke stated if there was not a single neighbor in here that would maybe make a difference, but there are nearby residents . 3 . . . MOAA Joint Planning Board Minutes-May I, 2002 Belsaas made a motion to deny the rezoning request because it does not comply with the Land Use Plan and requested Salkowski research and prepare a Temporary Use Permit with specific conditions of tonight's discussion. Youngs seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Before the next meeting a draft of a Temporary Use Permit will be sent to Schluender and anyone who wants a copy can contact the office. The Board will be adopting a motion at the next meeting regarding the temporary use. Denn made a motion to dismiss the Conditional Use Permit without prej udice. Herbst seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Schluender thanked everyone for coming to the site for the inspection. III. Ocello, LLC LOCATION: Part of the E 1/2 of Section 15, and part of the NW 1/4 ofSW 1/4 of Section 14, all in Township 121, Range 25. (Monticello Twp) Tax # 213-100-151400 Petitions for a Conditional use Permit to allow land alteration to grade property in preparation of a residential development as regulated in Section 728 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance. Salkowski explained this is a petition to allow land alteration to grade property in preparation of a residential development. It is similar to prior actions in this plat, where significant grading is proposed before the annexation is completed. The applicant has submitted detailed plans, and staff are not aware of any major problems. The overall project was subject to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet a few years ago. Salkowski mentioned there has been discussion of better establishing the wetlands which were replaced. They do not seem to be taking as well as was planned. Youngs asked if this would fill out Groveland. Dan Parks from l\.1FRA, representing Ocello, stated this would be the last addition. He stated they are asking for approval to grade the last 77 lots. He stated the wetland ponds drain from the small to the large and balance themselves. Belsaas stated he saw no reason to be concerned unless it was over erosion control. Belsaas made a motion to approve a Land Alteration Permit in accord with the plans presented and description provided by the applicant with the conditions that construction must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and best management practices must be used for erosion control. Herbst seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4 MOAA Joint Planning Board Minutes-May 1, 2002 . IV. Other Business Salkowski stated he received a call that the pipe was going into the ground at Kjellberg's West and the City would be annexing it as soon as it is hooked up to city sewer. The township has agreed to honor this as soon as the sewer is hooked up. Denn stated the Township will need to decide whether it meets our agreement. Salkowski suggested changing the meetings dates for June and July because of vacation and a holiday. If meetings are needed in June and July they will be held on June 12 and July 10. Youngs made a motion to approve this change in dates and BeJsaas seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Salkowski stated he received a letter from Hoff and there was a brief discussion on Gold Nugget. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9'10 PM . . 5 Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Joint Planning Board TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (pursuant to section 502.4 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance) .Issued to: Gary Schluender Property Description: Those parts of the E ~ of the SW l;4 of Section 10, and the E Yz of the NW Y4 of Section ] 5 all lying southeasterly of the centerline of the Township Road in Township 121, Range 25, Monticello Township, Wright County. Background: Schluender has proper permits to operate a gravel mine on the above-described property. The property is zoned AG, General Agriculture. In September of 2000, he obtained a building permit for a 60' by 90' pole building to be used for storage related to his construction business and the gravel pit Some time after that, and during the year 2001, Schluender allowed the bui Iding, and some surrounding land to be used as a short term storage facility for vehicles for a nearby automobile dealership. Towed vehicles being impounded, as well as other vehicles awaiting repair and tow trucks have been stored at the site. It became, in effect, an impound lot and vehicle storage lot. Such use is not permitted in the AG district. Upon receiving complaints about this violation, the Zoning Administrator notified Schluender that the use must cease unless proper permits could be obtained through a rezoning and review by the Joint Plmming Board. Schluender applied for rezoning a portion of the property to a commercial zone, and a permit to operate the impound lot. Said rezoning was denied, after two meetings which included public hearings, held by the Joint Planning Board on April 3 and May I, 2002. Schluender acknowledges his presence at these meetings and being properly informed of the decision made on May 1 in his presence. (Minutes of said meetings are available from the Wright County Office of Planning and Zoning.) At that time, the Board directed its staff to prepare this Temporary Use Permit, to allow Schluender to continue the storage operation within limited parameters while .he City and Township of Monticello resolve a pending lawsuit regarding the Joint Planning Board and plmming ssues in this area. This permit offers no assurance that the use may become permanent, but the applicant may apply for renewal which will be issued at the strict discretion of the Board, as the expiration date approaches. The Board notes that Schluender established this use without proper permits, in violation of local ordinance and entirely at his own risk. Pending a final outcome of pending legal cases involving the City, Township and this Board, and the resol ution of a land use plan which may be revised for this area after said legal cases are resolved, a Temporary Use Permit is hereby issued to Gary Schluender to continue to operate the vehicle storage yard as established. Said permit shall expire on This permits is contingent on the following terms and conditions. I. All requirements of the Wright County Building Inspector noted in his letter (on file) dated April 24, 2002 must be completed and approved by August 1, 2002. 2. Vines or other appropriate fast growing vegetation must be established and maintained on the screening fence facing the road which is northeast of the building. 3. No other permits may be issued. nor buildings constructed on the property described above for the duration of this permit, nor while the use continues, unless specifically authorized by action of this Board. 4. A maximum of vehicles may be stored outside the building, strictly limited to the area north and west of the building. No other outdoor storage of any kind is permitted, except as expressly permitted as part of the gravel mining operation. .Signed Gary Schluender Attest: Tom Salkowski. Administrator . MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA JOINT PLANNING BOARD Meeting of .July 10,2002 MINUTES (Informational) The July 10.2002 meeting of the Monticello Orderlv Annexation Area Joint Planning Board v,'as . ~ called to order at 7:30 PM by Pat Sawatzke, Chairman. Members Roger Belsaas, Franklin Denn. Clint Herbst. Bill Youngs and Tom SalkowskL Planning Board Administrator were present. I. A. Approve Minutes of May 1,2002 Meeting Belsaas made a motion to approve the May 1,2002 meeting minutes as written. Denn seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Additions or Corrections to Tonight's Agenda Salkowski stated he had 2 additions to the agenda. He wanted to discuss the date of the August meeting ifthcre is a need for one and the anncxation of Kjellberg's Park West. Sawatzke suggested discussing the date ofthc meeting under other Business and changing Other Business to itcm # IV. The annexation of Kjellberg's Park West was placed on the agenda as # III. A motion was made by Denn and seconded by Youngs approving the agenda with the . suggested additions. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. Review and Adopt Temporary Use Permit - Gary Schluender Salkowski presented to members of the Board a draft of the Temporary Use Permit based on the discussion at thc May 1, 2002 meeting. There are two blanks left in the document: thc date of expiration for the permit and the maximum number of vehicles which can be stored. Youngs asked if the number of vehicles inside the building were included in the total number. Salkowski stated no, just outside. Belsaas suggested an expiration date of August. 2004 so it doesn't come before the Board again too soon. Schluender stated he currently has 60 vehicles in outside storage and it is not usually going to be that many. Belsaas asked whcn the new shop will be up and ruIming. Schluender stated he thought early October was the target date. He was asked if all 60 vehicles are on the crushed concrcte? Schluender stated about 4 - 6 were parked on the slopc approaching the fence. . Schluender stated he did get the vines which were requested planted. Herbst asked if 60 vehicles will fit on the crushed concrete. Schluender stated yes, but thin}.,:.s allowing 50 vehiclcs would be sufficient. Belsaas again suggested an expiration date of August, 2004 with a relaxation on the number of vehicles allowed until October 1,2002 until the new building is ready. Salkowski stated he thought the Board needed to get the message across to the dealer that every timc hc has a space problcm he cannot just ask someone to store things for him on their property. Belsaas ~NC-~L2) z: . 'X'lSOOWINYNil U3IillIV;) :3.LOA .uonOw aq1 papuo:>as uuau 'AJ!:J aqJ 01 snon~nuoJ S! AJJadoJd "'q1 puc ur.Id ;lS[1 puc'l aq1 qn'" Jua1S!SUOJ S! AlJadoJd aq1 jO asn Jq1 ~U!pug uonow u apuw scr.slag 'uo!ssnJs!p 1Jl{11nJ 13U!MOIIOd 'A1!J dtP Ol SnOn13!lUOJ S! pur urrd Jsn purr dlll tp!,,\\ sJqdmoJ UO~lBXdUtm llmUJlOd 8tp 1BtI1 pug 01 ;\IUO SpJJU p1B08' dlll 'lU8WJ;:l113B lU!Of dt[l JO SW1Jl Jt[l l{l!M 1\[dwo::J o.l 'UO!lBXJUUB JO ABM Jlll U! PUUls lOU PInol{s p1BOH S!lll SJJUd1JJJ!P l!dt[l J1\[OSJ1 s, ~JJql!Jf)[ pUB ;\1!;) Jl{l J:1UO 'ldMJS ;\1!:1 01 UO!lJJUUOJ Aq Pd1\[OS lS8q dq PInoM lP!l.[M WdIQ01d B SB pJMJ!1\ Ud8q SUl) 1J1\\8S S, B1JqIIJ!')J s.mJA ~ I -0 I 1SUJ[ lU 10] p81'F.1S qSMO)[IBS 'lSJ N\ )j1Bd s, 1318qII8!')J JO UO!lUX8UUB Jl{l M8!1\d1 Plnol{s plBoH S!lll 'lUJWJ81B'F. UB 18pun 1Bl.[11110 j)U!lu!od lno JUOB pBl{ BpUJtJB S!l{118ijB km10nB s, drl[SUM01 J4l W01] 1JU8[ B pJ1\ !J::J81 Jl{ pdlBlS !)[SMO)!IBS JsaM. JfJUd s,~Jaq"J~)I jO uoncxauuy "III "S8BUBl[:1 pJSS11JS!P 81\OqB 8l[1 41!M AlBa 011!W18d 84lJO AdOJ [BU!~!lO UB I!BW p[nOM 84 pJ1B1S !)[SMO)j[BS 'X 'lSilOWINYNfl G3rn~VJ :3.LOA . 'uOHOW aq1 pJpUOJJS s~uno X .AIUO asn a~CJ01S .I0j AIP!JJs S! HWJJU S!q1 1uql UO!P!J1SJJ u apnpu! oJ papuJwr. aq 01 P # UOmpUOJ pUl: 'p # uompuo:> U! qdcJ~uJud U! pJ1.lJSU! OS Jaqwnu Jq1 'POO(; 'I Jsnl:nv JOj JJS a1up UO!lu_qdxa Jq1 qHA\ UJUP'\\ Sl~ .\.JJJUCUU .IapuJnlqJS Jq1 JOj J!W.lJd as[1 ,uu.lodma.L aqlJo UCJp Jq1 JUOpu 01 UO!lOLU C Jpr.LU Suuslag 'J~BJ01S .IoJ '\[lJ!11S dq lU8W8J1TIU 8t[l ')Bt[l pm~ '\l-I8dOld S!4 UO 8Ju[d ZlUl)lB1 SJF'!tF'i\]O S8[BS .10 suop::mu ou 0') 081TIB Pln04s 8l{ 8qABw lUll1 .I8pu8n)lPS 01 p81SdtJiJns ;DfZ1BMBS "SJ!lD 8tp U! P81B18do ;\lUnOJ 10 l\l!J ApSOW 8lB 8smp p8lB1S qS,'\\O)[]BS i,SlOI punodw! j)!q 8t[llU 8i\Bl{ ,\8l{l SUO!lJnB fl!q 8l(11110qB lBlli\\. - uUP.lOf S!UUJG 'dOllS ,\poq ,'\\8U 8l[1 01 O~ tIOOS lEM S!tll "B81B JflB101S Jl{l U! 1I0 3u!0~ l1lI!EBlJp S! J18lp "CpU8J1n:) ",(IlIO 8:3B101S .I0J ;)q PInoM SItU .tlUQ1Bd 10 1110-flU!J8!d ou 8q p[nOM 81Jl{1 pJ1UlS !)[SMO)j[BS (',pJSlIJJq ,\[lUJJ.ln:J Jq 01 SJp!l[Ji\ 8tp 8.1!nbJ1 JM PlnOJ P8)[SU Isq1JfI -p8sodOJd SJp!l[8i\ JO 1Jqml111 Jl(l l/n\\ LU81qoJd U di\Bl[ lOU PIP 8l[ p81B1S sfluno A 'JilB1\[BS 10] pJsn Jq lOu PInoM S!tp pJW1S lsq.l81-1 i,Jii''F.J01S ,(lUlOdtuJl1noqB 818lPLI! j)U~lp8urOS Jq JJ;141 1, UPInotrS TIO!StPtU!P ,\\8U U SppB S!lfl ',\\OU 8Uotl s.JJn(I tllL^l\ 'S;;lP!lf8AJO SJdqtunu 18[[BtUS .lOJ :3u!dol[ SB.'\\ 1- unpJof S!UU;)(I 'SlU8UIurOJ ,{UB pm[ UBP10[ S!UlIJQ .10ql[tl!dU Jr p;),)[SB 8>IZlB.\\BS 'u8do S! J;JBds'\\8U ;)l[1 .l81JB . 1l,'\\OP ui3 p[not[s S.l8qtllnU 8l[1 SB Z:OOz: 's: r .l8qOlJO ,{q OS: 01 UMOp .l8CjtllnU 8t[1 iJu!ddo.lp p81s8i'ii1ns ;::00;: '0 [(!Ill' -SJlnll!]i\l p.moH i3U!uur~ld lU~Or VVO~\! . Rene and Linda McCullough 8829 Fenning Ave N.E. Monticello, Mn. 55362 Leroy and Mary Lou Pysk 8919 Fenning Ave N. E. Monticello, Mn 55362 Dear Planners of the City of Monticello, This letter is in responce to the notice of hearing for the Spirit Hills changes to the PUD. The request made by the developer to reduce the size of the originally proposed housing units is an unreasonable request. After speaking with a city planner regarding the requested changes, it is apparent that the housing suggested for the said property will not make enough money for the development company. In the meeting in which their PUD was first granted, you will note that we did not oppose the development of the property. We requested the information needed to assess the quantity of homes as well as the price bracket of the homes. We never did recieve any of the requested information. At that time the developer was only interested in the town homes on the corner of Fenning and Jason. It is no secret that the town homes are the most profitable of the proposed project. Based on the quantity of town homes on that site, we would suggest that they will make a very good profit. . They now are proposing to take the land across from our homes, and reduce the size of the proposed homes to accommodate their profit. We think it is very obvious by the two developments on interstate 94, that the city of Monticello does not need another development of that size, value or design, nor do we need to downsize the proposed homes and deny families the ability to purchase upscale homes in a beautiful part of this city. Remember, as this community continues to prosper, we need to provide housing which meets the needs of our growing city. It would seem to us that what is being proposed is soley for the benefit of the developer. We think it is unconscionable for the developer to be given this consideration when according to our conversations with the city and prior experience with the planning commision, he has already been given incredible leeway. We also believe that developers should be submitting their proposals earlier and certainly more complete so the planning commision and the neighborhood could have time to digest their valued information. This would allow for constructive critique and provide the best for the city and potential development. We beleive the current process short cuts many people. We would also like to suggest that comments from the nieghborhood be allowed after the presentation by the developer. Thank you for this opportunity to respond. We can be reached at 763-286-4957. . Respectfully, , '--,.,~. Leroy Pysk ", ,,-". ._:::/~' /\ /J (:A,,, hfl]"J7Z Rene McCullough ,'~ /" ~",/?,l.r /".:';':-:::;;"" ...--;" ..' /,</'"" ..... / .,.,' /;>" ( {< c. ~ L'- "'-'-;;