Planning Commission Agenda 05-23-2005
.
)
.
.
)
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MA Y 23rd, 2005
5:30 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie. Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy
Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
StaiI:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela
Schumann
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, May 3rd,
2005 and the revised minutes of Tuesday, April 51\ 2005.
3. Citizen comments.
4.
Consideration of a request for rezoning from R-PUD (Residential Planned Unit Developmcnt) to B-4
(Regional Business) and prcliminary plat for Monticcllo Commerce Center 7th Addition.
Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
5. Adjourn
.
I
.
)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 5th, 2005 6:00 P.M
Commissioners in Attendance:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison Present:
Glen Posusta
Staff in Attendance:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittmml/NAC
1. Call to order.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frie at 6:05 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesdav, March 1st,
2005.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS TEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD TlJESDA Y, MARCH 1 ST,
2005, SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS TO PAGE12, ITEM 10 PENDING FURTHER
DISCUSSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
APPROVED lJNANIMOUSL Y.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
No items were considered for addition to the agenda; however Chairman Frie noted that items 5,
6, 7 and 11 were removed from the Agenda, and clarification of item 10, page 12 from the
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005 meeting of the Commission would be discussed as item I3B of the
Agenda. The Commission asked if additional public notice would be given regarding the items to
be removed from the Agenda. Planner Steve Grittman explained that an additional public notice
would be provided.
4. Citizen comments.
Chairman Frie called for citizen's comments. Jeneen Curvers residing at 6115 Wildwood Way
was requesting a sign to be located in the public right-of-way providing additional protection to
an autistic child residing in the neighborhood. The commission referred the sign request to the
City Council through Council member Posusta. No other citizen's comments were heard.
..--...
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 5th, 2005 6:00 P.M
Commissioners in Attendance:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison Present:
Glen Posusta
Staff in Attendance:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve GrittmanlNAC
I. Call to order.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fric at 6:05 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, March 1st,
2005.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES
OF TilE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 1 ST,
2005, SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS TO PAGEI2, ITEM 10 PENDING FURTHER
DISCUSSION.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
No items were considered for addition to the agenda; however Chairman Frie noted that items 5,
6, 7 and 11 wcre removcd from the Agenda, and clariiication of item 10, page 12 from the
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005 meeting ofthc Commission would be discussed as item 13B of the
Agenda. The Commission asked if additional public notice would be given regarding the items to
be removcd from the Agenda. Planner Steve Grittman cXplained that an additional public notice
would be providcd.
4. Citizen comments.
Chairman Fric callcd for citizen's comments. Jeneen Curvers residing at 6115 Wildwood Way
was requesting a sign to be locatcd in the public right-of-way providing additional protection to
an autistic child residing in the neighborhood. The commission referrcd thc sign request to the
City Council through Council member Posusta. No other citizen's comments were heard.
-----
.
I
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS TEN. MOTION CARRIED.
9. Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Development
Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Poplar Hill, a residential
subdivision consistinl! of 228 sinl!lc family units, 180 townhome units and 300 apartment units;
and a request for Rezone from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-IA, R-l and R-2A (Single-
familv Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), B-3, Highway Business and PZR
(Performance Zone-Residential). Applicant: Insignia Development.
City Planner Steve Grittman presented a staff report to the Commisison describing the request
by lnsignia Development to allow a Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat for a mixed-
use devcIopment to be known as Poplar Hill. The subject site is 230 acres in area and is located
south of90tl1 Street Northeast and west of the Groveland Development. The project includes a
request for rezoning from its current A-O, Agricultural-Open Space designation, to a mix of R-
1, R-I A, R-2A, R-3, and PZR zoning.
Grittman's report included planning staffs analysis, review, and recommendations regarding
the revised plans dated March 14,2005. Grittman noted that proposed zoning and
development appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and that the
proposed zoning designations are consistent with adjoining land uses to the south. Grittman
noted that a separate review will be required for development in that portion ofland located
in the northern part of the plat proposed for future development.
Grittman referred to all conditions described by the staff report which should be referred to
for a complete description of Grittman' s presentation.
A presentation was made by David Atkins, representing Insignia Development. lIe also
introduced JefT'froy and another representative ofInsignia. Within the presentation, Atkins
stated that Insignia has reduced the number of apartments to a total of 200 units, in four
buildings with 25 units each, representing that the apartments would have underground
parking, a pool, clubhouse, and common green space.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Dennis Jordan, residing at 3214 -. 90th Street NE was recognized and spoke to his concerns
relating to:
1. high density commercial development along 90th Street NE rather than low
density residential that would be compatible to neighboring residential
devclopment;
2. traffic increases on 90th Street NE that would be caused by this development;
3. possible widening of 90th Street NE, expressing that no right of way should be
taken f<Jrm the north side of 90th St. NE;
4. inappropriate and unlawful commercial uses on the Schluender land including
')
- i-' -
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03104
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Development
Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Poplar Hill. a residential
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-IA, R-I and R-2A (Single-
family Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), B-3, Highway Business and PZR
Performance Zone-Residential. A licant: Insi rnia Devc10 ment.
City Planner Steve Grittman presented a staff report to the Commisison describing the request
by Insignia Development to allow a Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat for a mixcd-
usc dcvelopment to be known as Poplar Bill. Thc subject site is 230 acres in arca and is located
south of 90th Strcet Northeast and west of the GroveIand Development. The projcct includcs a
requcst for rezoning from its current A-O, Agricultural-Opcn Spacc designation, to a mix ofR-
1, R-IA, R-2A, R-3, and PZR zoning.
.
Grittman's report included planning staffs analysis, review, and recommendations regarding
the revised plans datcd March 14,2005. Grittman noted that proposed zoning and
developmcnt appears to be consistcnt with the Comprchensivc Land Use Plan, and that the
proposed zoning dcsignations are consistent with adjoining land uses to the south. Grittman
noted that a separate review wi II be required for development in that portion ofland located
in thc northcrn part of the plat proposed for future development.
Grittman refcrred to all conditions described by the statl'report which should be referred to
for a complete description of Grittman' s prescntation.
A presentation was made by David Atkins, representing Insignia Development. He also
introduced Jeff Troy and another representative ofInsignia. Within the presentation, Atkins
stated that Insignia has reduced the number of apartments to a total of 200 units, in four
buildings with 25 units each, representing that the apartments would have underground
parking, a pool, c1ubhousc, and common grcen space.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.
Dennis Jordan, residing at 3214 - 90th Strect NE was rccognized and spoke to his concerns
relating to:
I. high dcnsity commercial development along 90th Street NE rather than low
density residential that would be compatible to neighboring residential
developmcnt;
2. traffic increases on 90th Street NE that would be caused by this development;
3. possible widening of 90th Street NE, expressing that no right of way should be
taken form the north side of 90th St. NE;
4. inappropriate and unlawful commercial uses on the Schluender land including
- :.\ -
Planning Commission Agenda 08103104
.
Hilgart stated that he would approve the development as long as the density did not exceed 3
lots per acre and if the apartments were excluded from the first phase of the development. He
took no issue with the R-IA zoning.
Dragsten asked if the roads would be private or public. Insignia reported that roads would be
public and private. Dragstcn asked about landscaping that may be along School Boulevard.
Grittman stated that landscaping of School Boulevard would be planned to include diversity
in plantings. Dragsten asked if there would be a homeowncrs association, said that he was
concerned with traffic and asked if the trail plan had been completed for the development.
Insignia and Grittman responded to the affirmative to all questions. Dragsten asked if the 20
acres of Schluender's commcrcial/industrial use would be in the 1 st phase of the
development. O'Neill stated that it would be included in the 1 st phase according to the
prescnted Insignia plan. Dragsten stated that the covenants do not appear to match the zoning
ordinancc standards. Insignia stated that he covenants were only in draft form and would be
made to match or exceed ordinances. Dragsten said that he would like to see the number of
multifamily and townhouses lowered. Insignia confirmed that there would be no more than
200 apartment units, all of which would have underground parking to meet the PZR
minimum lot area requirements. Frie suggested that a stipulation to approval of the
b . d' d . f' 90th S
apartments may e WI en1l1g an reconstructIOn 0 . treet.
.
Spartz asked if the swimming pool in the association area would be private or public.
Insignia reported that the pool would be private. Spartz also asked if all R-2A dwellings
would be constructed with double garages. Insigia confirmed that all would have two car
garages.
Suchy was concerned that the R-IA and commercial areas including the apartments were too
close together. Insignia said that they would be providing extensive landscaping and buffer
yards. Suchy also asked who is responsible and what is the tirneline for Schluender to cease
their industrial and excavating business. Insignia said that there is no timcline; however, they
would likely remain until Phase 4 of the development. O'Neill stated that the unlawful
nonconformities must be "peeled away" from Schluender's business as part of the
development agreement and prior to issuance of any grading permit to begin development.
Suchy also asked who would be responsible for roadway median landscaping and
maintenance. Insignia said that those portions that become part of the public right-of-way,
would be maintained by the City. The balance would be maintained by the Ilome Owner's
Association.
Frie examined each of the conditions of approval considered by Exhibit "Z". He expressed
concern wi th regard to the depth and fencing of swi lllming pools. F rie asked if the Parks
Commission had considered the parks. O'Neill said that the Parks Commission wants
substantial investment in the parks up front, with the baseball and other athletic fields
constructed first. In response to Frie, O'Neill eXplained that covenants would be
incorporated into the Development.
.
- .j -
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
.
Frie asked Grittman if the project could be made ready for Development Stage PUD review
with the incorporation of items 24 and 25 into Exhibit Z. Condition 24 would be that 90th
Street musts be redesigned and built to a urban roadway section when the Insignia
development is 30% developed; and, Condition 25 would be the currcnt non-conforming
conditions of the Schluender businesses and uses must be addressed and corrected with this
Planned Unit Development and plat. Grittman agreed. Fire also asked if the covenants and
deelaration would be incorporated into the conditions of the PUD according to Exhibit Z,
item 22. Grittman said yes.
Posusta reassured that as the value of the land goes up, Schluender would sell and cease their
excavating business. He asked if the proposed open and outdoor storage ordinance changes
would affect Schluender's business. He also expressed that he believes that the 50 acre park
in the Insignia development area offsets the apartment development within the project.
Patch stated that he is concerned that if the development pattern of Monticello continues to
be by Planned Unit Development with special conditions for each PUD, then enforcement of
those PUD requirements will become a heavy burden on the City and city staff.
Suchy said that she would prefer to see parking as demonstrated rather than built and not
used. She questioned the number proposed and felt that 100 stalls must be enough. Posusta
agreed.
. Chairman Frie called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IULGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING FROM A-O TO A MIX OF R-IA, R-l, R-2A, R-3, AND PZR, AS PROPOSED
IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED MARCH 14,2005, AS AMENDED BY
INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE NO MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED
APARTMENT UNITS AND AS OTHERWISE AMENDED TO DATE BY INSIGNIA
DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING TIIAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD
REFLECr THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF TI-IE
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUO BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PUD IS
CONSISTENT WITH TI-IE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO
THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z AND ADDING CONDITIONS:
24. 90th Street must be redesigned and built to an urban roadway section when the
Insignia development is 30% developed; and,
.
25. The current non-conforming conditions of the Schluender businesses and uses
- (i ..
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
must be addressed and corrected with this Planned Unit Development and
plat.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IHLGART. MOTION APPROVED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON A PINDING THAT THE PLAT MEETS ITIE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH THE TWO ADDITIONS [SEE ABOVE].
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION APPROVED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
a Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the R-IA zoned potion of the
plat of Spirit Hills. Applicant: Maplewood Development
City Planner Steve Grittman presented a staff report in summary. Maplewood Development
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. Steve noted that the City has
revised, by PUD, its R -1 A standards for both of the previous two R -I A proj ects - Ilillside
Farms and Carlisle Village.
The primary issue raised by the developers is that the 1,400 square feet foundation
requirement for two-story houses is too large for builders in the current market.
Stevc noted that the R-l A zoning was not dcsigned with the "current market" in mind and
reiterated the Spirit Hills requests to:
1. Reduce the front setbacks to 30 feet, from a 35 foot averagc.
2. Reduce the total side setback arca to 15 fcet from the current 21 feet.
3. Reduce 2 story foundation size from 1,400 square feet to 1,200 square fcet.
4. Reducc garage sizc from 700 square fect to 660 square feet.
5. Change landscaping rcquirement to two deciduous and one conifer, plus sod (from
two trees in thc boulevard per street frontage).
With regard to itcm 1., the ordinance currently allows some 30 foot setbacks. The avcraging
was inserted to grant flexibility and encourage a variation in setback, rather than a regimentcd
30 fect as in typical singlc family subdivisions.
With regard to item 2., the purpose ofthc increased sidc setbacks is to requirc some
spaciousncss bet wccn homes, rather than allow a more cramped building scparation. Thc
appl icants havc the option of incrcasing lot width if they are concerncd that their houses wi U
not fit on a 90 fc)()t wide lot.
- 7 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
With regard to item 3., this reduction has been allowed by pun in the other two R-IA
subdivisions previously. The City has the discretion in a PUD to follow these previous
decisions, or find that this particular project should be held to a different standard.
With regard to item 4., 660 square feet would accommodate a minimum 3 car garage
dimension. Staff believes that the R-IA was not designed to accommodate minimum
dimensions.
With regard to item 5., staff believes that the current landscaping standards have been
reasonable, and that creating different standards for each project leads to confusion and
difficulty with enforcement and monitoring. The applicant is encouraged to apply the
proposed standards to their project.
Chairman Frie asked if split entry homes were prohibited within the R-IA District. Grittmal1
indicated that split entries were limited in Carlisle Village only under thew terms of the PUD.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, recognizing Renee McCullough. She spoke in
opposition to any reductions in the R-IA standards as related to size of homes. She also
expressed concerns relating to traffic safety on Fenning Avenue, with specific concern for
pedestrians. She felt that a traffic study is needed on Fcnning. McCullough expressed that
thcre were too many townhomes. O'Ncill reviewed roadway upgrades being planned for
Fcnning.
Dean Parker, residing at 6102 Wildwood Way spoke against changes to the R-IA standards,
wants "step-up" large home lots.
Jeane Curvers residing at 6115 Wildwood Way expressed concerns regarding tree
preservation along the south property line.
Mario CocciareJla of Maplewood Development explained that some tree loss was required in
order to accomplish walk-out lots on the south edge of the development site.
Michelle Parker, residing at 6102 Wildwood Way spoke against changing the R-l A standards
and the City acquiescing to developers.
Michael Gross, residing on Wildwood Way cneouraged the Commission to consider site
acccss carefully, expressing traffic concerns on Fenning.
Chairman Fire closed the public hearing.
Suchy was concerned with changes proposed to R-IA standards and stated that changes are
unwarranted and asked the developer what has changed from the original approval.
- ~ -
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
.
Cocciarella responded with an explanation relating to reductions in front yard setbacks to
allow for rear yard pools and ball courts. He also said that a gas line easement interferes with
the buildable area of some lots.
Spartz asked the developer as to why these changes were not brought to the Commission
earlier. The developer said that they were focusing on townhome development earlier and
did not have the need to address the R-l A area at that time.
Drageten was not in favor of typical split entry homes in the R-IA district but said that
setback adjustments may be allowable if the homes built are extraordinarily attractive.
Hilgart said that the final development standards determined for Carlisle Village should be
applied to Maplewood.
Posusta spoke in favor of reducing the ground floor area to 1,200 square feet only for two-
story homes.
Chairman Frie summarized the discussions of the Commission, and recognized Dale
Gobermiller, residing at 6100 Wildwood Way. Mr. Gobermiller said that Monticello has a
"ton of starter homes" and that the City should maintain existing homc size standards.
.
Mario Cocciarella requested that the preliminary plat be extended and referred to the City
Counci I.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE BY SUCHY TO DENY THE CIIANGES, BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THE R-IA REGULATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED TO PRESERVE HIGH
AMENITY LANDS FOR HOUSING STYLES THAT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT MOVE-
UP OPPORTUNITIES TO THE MONTICELLO HOUSING MARKET, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAYBE A LIMITED MARKET FOR SUCH
I lOUSING AT TI--IE CURRENT TIME. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
CHANGES NUMBERED:
1. Reduce the front setbacks to 30 feet, from a 35 foot average.
2. Reduce the total side setback area to 15 feet from the current 21 feet.
3. Reduce 2 story foundation size from 1,400 square feet to 1,200 square feet,
also to provide the same development standards as in Carlisle Village to not allow
split entry house styles, based on a finding that the current standards are generally
appropriate, however, some modification are necessary to ensure that the purpose
of the Spirit I-Iills PUD is realized.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION APPROVED 4 TO 1,
- () -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
WITH COMMISSIONER SUCHY OPPOSED.
11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Citv of Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, relating to the regulation of Open and Outdoor Storage.
Continued to the Planning Commission meeting in May.
12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulating
relocation of lawful non-conforming billbomd signs.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Chairman Frie opened and closed the public hearing after hearing an explanation of the
major points from the staff report.
Dragsten asked who will move the signs. Staff said that the City has a responsibility to
provide for the relocation of uses displaced by the new public use and that it is likely that
the owner Lamar Advertising would move the signs.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR A REASONABLE ALTERNATIYE TO THE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IMMEDIA'fE REMOVAL IN CASES OF PUBLIC
ACQUISITION.
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Planning Commission Tour
There was a brief discussion relating to the Planning Commission and Council taking a tour
of neighboring communities to review development.
138. Motion Clarification, March Minutes
A brief discussion cImified the opinion of the Planning Commission that in the R-IA
district, a "Split Entry" home is a home with a small split foyer from which one must either
walk up a stairway or walk down a stairway to living areas of the home.
14. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS TEN TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION APPROVED.
- I () -
.
MINVTES
REGIJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TVESDA Y, MAY 3RO, 2005
6:00 P,M
Commissioners Present:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff Present:
Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, John Simola, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the mecting to order at 6:00 PM and noted all Commission
membcrs were prescnt and quorum established. Chairman Frie noted the absence of Mr.
O'Neill.
2.
Consideration to the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday.
April 5th, 2005.
.
Chairman Fric requested that the minutes of the April mecting be revised to corrcct minor
errors. Frie also requested claritication from statf on the two additional conditions added
to the approval of the Poplar IIill item at April's meeting. Frie noted that the
Commission had added two conditions and they were missing from the Council action on
that item. Frie requested that staff provide a copy of what Council received and look into
make certain the two conditions were reviewed by the Council.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5th, 2005, WITH MINOR
CHANGE AS NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Consideration of addin?, items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen comments.
.
Dick Van Allen, 6448 River Mill Drive, addressed the Commission in regards to the
Open and Outdoor Storage item that would be heard latcr on the agenda. Van Allen
stated that he is opposed to the proposed amendment due to concerns on the setbacks,
butler yard and screening requirements, and trash handling restrictions. Van Allen
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
suggested that the proposed amendments be considered instead as potential covenants
specitic to new industrial dcvelopments. Additionally, he requested that the Commission
carefully consider thc placement of new residential development in relationship to
cxisting industrial development. Van Allen submitted a lettcr to the Commission
outlining these concerns. Hilgart asked if Van Allcn owns a business in Monticello. Van
Allen statcd that he used to work for 80ndhus Coporation.
Fric asked Van Allen ifthe letter reprcscnts his opinion only or that of others as well.
Van Allen respondcd that it was only his opinion. Frie asked if Van Allen was involved
with the ad hoc committee who assisted in the development ofthe ordinancc. Van Allen
replied that he was not.
Frie thanked Van Allen for his comments.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Amcndment to Ordinance for Open and Outdoor Storagc.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Grittman presentcd the staff report, noting that thc proposed ordinance amendment
creates a standard that is cascading in nature, being more forgiving in hcavicr industrial
arcs and becoming stricter in the lighter industrial use areas. The ordinance amcndment
rose out ofa task force rcvicw of the current ordinance. After brief1y rcviewing the
amcndment, Grittman stated that staff recommends adoption.
Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing.
.
Bill Tapper, owner of industrial businesses at 212 Chelsca Road and 324 Edmonson
A vcnue, spoke to the Commission on the amendment. 'rapper applauded thc cfforts of
those who have worked on changing the ordinance, but expressed that hc is concerned
about some ofthc details ofthe ordinancc.
Tapper cxplaincd that his concerns wcrc rclated to clarifications on the 100% screcning
requirements, the requiremcnt that storage be kept behind the building line, and the
screening of garbage areas, espccially in 1-2 areas. Tapper noted that thc City
maintenance garage had unscreened dumpstcrs. Tapper requested more realistic solution
to the garbage storagc issue. Tapper suggestcd tabling the amendmcnt again for further
claritication ofthe issues mcntioned.
Jay Morrell, owner of industrial property at 140 I Fallon Ave, addresscd the Commission
on the matter, also exprcssing appreciation to staff and those who worked on the
amcndment. Morrell stated that he would also like clarification on othcr issues that had
been discussed at length in the committee mectings. Morrell cited ordinance
requiremcnts for fencing at 8 feet, which puts a large amount the industrial park in
violation. Morrell also questioned whether fencing was subject to the same setbacks as
buildings. Morrell rcferred to the letter hc sent in regard to thc proposed amendmcnt,
which listed the samc concerns. Morrell also recommended tabling the amendment.
Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing.
.
2
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
Frie asked if the Morrell and Tapper agreed that different districts justify differential
treatment in terms of outdoor storage. Tapper and Morrell stated that they don't have a
problem with the outline as presented, they are just seeking further detail.
Fric asked Patch and Grittman for information as a result of the task force meetings in
relationship to the items mentioned.
Grittman responded that the height limitation for permitted fences is 8'6". Grittman
stated his belief that the amendment is appropriate, noting that a CUP is required if the
fence is extremely tall. The trash handling requirements arc as is in the current code.
Cirittman stated that although it is easy to find examples of non-compliance with trash
handling, he believes that screening is a reasonable request, noting that when the
equipment is screened and contained properly, it is not considered outdoor storage.
Grittman commented that in terms of defining screening, it is reasonable to clarify the
definition and a good recommendation.
Patch noted that fences beyond 6' require a building permit. Additionally, fences taller
than 8'6" require a CUP and structural engineering. Patch urged caution on flexing the
amendment on this due to code requirements.
Fric asked Tapper and Morrell if they felt that the task force had an evenly distributed
representation. Morrell confirmed that statemcnt. Morrell commentcd on the new
industrial park, stating that if strict standards worked for the City in terms of the type of
industry sought, those are appropriate. However, in his industry, Morrell stated that he
would like more flexibility.
.
Dragsten and Grittman confirmed that construction waste and sites arc exempt from the
screening requirements.
Spartz inquired whether both fencing and landscaping should be required when an
industrial use abuts a residential use. Grittman stated that the proposed ordinance
wouldn't necessarily require both, as long as the screening is 100% opaque.
Suchy stated that she understood the structural concerns and other issues related to
fencing, but stated that she also wants Commission to be able to be as flexible as possible
with the business community. Suchy asked if it is possible to consider adding a
stipu lation that fencing must be neutral in eolor.
Posusta agreed that colored feneing can be an issue. Posusta noted that one of the
primary purposes for amending the ordinance was related to fencing and screening.
Posusta stated that he did not believe all of the issues related to those items had been
addresscd and also recommended tabling so they eould be further defined.
Patch noted that in tcrms of the proposed amendment, a lawful, non-comforming use will
be grandfathered in. Unlawful non-conforming uses would not be allowed. Frie stated
that there are so many non-compliant lIses, however that City is not staffed to handle the
blight. frie suggested that the ordinancc amendment may now allow some of the non-
compliant uses.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER fRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE OPEN AND
OUTDOOR S'rORAGE AMENDMENT TO RESOLVE ISSUES RELATED TO
.
"
.,
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
FENCING, SCREENING AND LANGUAGE DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
Chairman Frie requested that rcpresentatives from all industrial districts be notified ofthc
ncxt committee mecting to discuss the amendment.
6. Continucd Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Usc
Permit allowing for the intensification of an existin~ drive-up convenience fast food
establishment in a B-3 (Highwav Business) District.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting that the CUP amendment is intended to allow a
second order board adjacent to the existing. At McDonald's request, the item was tabled
at April's meeting. McDonald's representatives had mct with City staff to discuss and
resolve the conditions noted in the staff report. As a result, they had revised their plan to
provide additional stacking space, allowing more vehicles to move through the drive-
through more quickly. McDonald's has also added the recommended landscaping and
has agreed to work with the City to reduce the glare at edges of property. Grittman stated
that staff is recommending approval based on the revised plan.
Dragsten asked if there is room to back out of the parking area with this plan. Grittman
indicated that this plan does accommodate backing.
.
Spartz asked if staff has been able to ascertain whether this arrangement has bcen used in
other locations. Frie stated that he had rcsearched this and had seen locations in St.
Cloud whcre it worked well.
Suchy asked ifthere was sufficient room bctween thc overflow parking and second lane
to allow for a passing car. Grittman responded that with a dimension of 21 feet, thcre
should be ample spacc to drivc through.
Chairman Frie opencd the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Frie closed the public
hearing.
Hilgart stated that he believed the second order board was a good idea as it would
potentially eliminatc problematic vehicle stacking.
Spartz noted the bus parking on the northeast side ofthc building, as well as the exit door
that comes out cast side of building. Spartz explained that his concern is that pedestrians
will be going across two lanes of traffic to reach thc parking areas.
Jerry Roper, representative for McDonald's, responded that an option would be to put a
railing in to make sure that pedestrians stop to obscrve before crossing.
Suchy agreed with Spartz, citing her research of this item, and stated that the railing at
that location would be an appropriate safety measure.
.
Patch commented that it might also be worthwhile to have a stopping space also the cast
sidc for pedcstrians.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
Posusta commended McDonald's for trying to eliminate stacking issues onto Oakwood.
Frie asked if anyone was present from SuperAmeriea. No represcntative was present and
staff noted that they had not received any comments from SA.
Frie asked Grittman if the conditions have all been satisfied. Grittman agreed that
conditions have been met.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER I-IILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE REQUEST FOR CUP AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED PLANS
AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIAIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER. DRAGSTEN.
MOTION AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO INCLUDE THE
ADDITION OF A SAFETY RAILING ON EAST SIDE AND SURFACE FOR
PEDESTRIAN STOPPING.
MOTION TO AMEND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI.. OF TIlE CUP AS AMENDED CARRIED.
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration ofa requcst for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage for the storage and rental of vehicles in a B-3 (Highwav Business) District.
Applicant: Enterprise Rent-a-Car
Grittman reviewed the staff report, refcrring to the applicant's sketch plan for an open
and outdoor sales use along Sand berg Road. Grittman notcd that Enterprise as an office
would be an allowable use; the storage of cars in the front yard requires the CUP.
Grittman indicated that based on the conditions listed in the ordinance, the open and
outdoor storage cannot take up required parking spaces for the site. The ordinance also
requires that the storage area be screened. Grittman stated that the reduction of parking
space by rental cars would excerbate an already tight parking situation and that staff is
recommending denial due to those issues.
Enterprise representative Rick Mendliek addressed the Commission. Mendlik stated that
Enterprise would not actually store vehicles on site. The cars arc staged there for when a
customer arrives to pick up the rented vehiclc. Mendliek noted that screening the parking
would block any view of the building and could create a safety situation. Mendlick
agreed that Sandberg is a congested street.
Frie stated that it seemed that the plans submitted were not complete in comparison to
other conditional use permit requests. Frie asked if that was due to the existing building
status. Grittman confirmed, indicating that in a majority of cases, CUP requests require
all applicable plans. Grittman noted that the existing site allowed for some flexibility.
5
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
Frie asked if the applicants were aware of the six regulations as outlined in the CUP
ordinance. Mendl ick indicated that they had received information relating to conditional
use requests. Frie commented that if Enterprise were approved, they would be approved
based on a number of vehicles allowed.
Suchy asked where the vehicles would be stored in the winter, during snow removal. Pat
Wade, Enterprise representative, responded that Enterprise has relationships with local
business which would allow them to utilize temporary parking. Suchy asked ifall of
Enterprise's facilities have outdoor parking and whether they were concerned about
possibility for crime if cars are sitting for a period of time. Wadc responded that they are
careful with security and lighting.
Spartz noted that he had similar concerns on parking and safety.
Frie stated that Sandberg is routinely clogged and asked staff who was the problem.
Posusta responded that General Rental has no parking for their employees and barely any
for their customers. Posusta noted that rental equipment takes up thc required parking
spots. Posusta stated that the road cut-off is also a problcm. Posusta stated that the
current situation shouldn't restrict Enterprise and also stated that the scrcening
requirement seems to be unreasonable in this case.
Frie agreed that while it may not be fair to deny based on an existing condition, safety is
a major concern. Frie asked Simola about winter snow removal. Simola stated that
Sandberg is always a problem.
.
Oragsten stated that safety is h is largest concern, as wel I as the fact the request doesn't
meet ordinance.
Hilgart asked what was located in the building previously. Grittman responded that it
was a lighting store and noted that under the ordinanee requirements, the building should
have 16-20 spaces. Currently, the parking lot is half of what it should be.
Frie asked if there a possibility of making use ofadjaccnt properties for vehicle storage.
John Johnson, property owner of the site, stated that therc is room on his autobody
business site. Frie asked applicant and Grittman if allowing storage at that location
would be feasible. Both indicated they could workout the issue. Fric's recommendation
is to continue the item to allow staff to resolve this issue.
Hilgart stated that as long as rental cars aren't parked on street or in the building's
parking lot, it would be aeceptable. Dragsten, Suchy and Spartz was receptive to another
review of plans illustrating that option.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR THE
STORAGE AND RENTAL OF VEHICLES IN A B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) DISTRICT
TO THE JUNE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
.
6
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage for the storage of scrap metal and similar materials associated with business
use in an I-I (Light Industria\) District.
.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the location and zoning district of the request.
Grittman stated that the applicants are showing the proposed storage area in the center of
a loop drive. Under both the current and proposed ordinance for open and outdoor
storage, the applicants would comply. As a result, Grittman reported that staff is
recommending approval.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Steve Budd, owner ofIntegrated Recyling, clarified that the conditional use permit
request was also for the] 3' high fence required for open and outdoor storage screen ing.
Budd stated that IRT does have a plan from an engineer and noted that the steel fence
would match the building.
Dragsten stated that the fence will improve the site dramatically.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CUP FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AND A ]3' FENCE MEETING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON ^ FINDING THAT
THE REQUEST MEETS THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THIS USE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
.
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
for on off-site monumcnt sign in a 8-4 (Rcgional Business) District.
App]icant Premier Banks
Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the proposed use would accommodate a
ncw bank facility along School Blvd and lIighway 25. Grittman referred to the recent
replat for Prairie Ponds 2nd Addition, which created three parcels. This request would be
sited on onc ofthe three parcels, which are zoned B-4. Grittman indicated that the CUP
for PUD is to accommodate the off-sitc sign requested. Grittman stated that the
applicants are requesting one sign in southeast corner of the parcel, and one adjacent to
the Deegan Avenuc, along their acecss road. Grittman commented that in reviewing
PUDs, staff look for a superior project in terms of design or amenities. In a trade-off for
the extra sign, thc applicant has suggested site improvcments including islands,
landscaping, etc. Grittman noted that the applicant is also showing a curb termination to
allow for a second user of north side of property. Grittman statcd that staff recommend
that two monument signs be allowed as part of the PUD request, rathcr than the pylon
and monument sign.
Grittman noted that the request from Arby's later in the agcnda would also be subject to
the PUD adopted as part of the plat.
.
Spartz asked why the applicants are asked to eliminate the two parking stalls. Grittman
stated that corner parking tends to prcsent problems, and these aren't nccded to meet
requircments.
7
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.
Wayne Elam of Nelson Development addressed the Commission representing Premier
Banks. Elam presented documents showing buildings and signage, stating that Premier
Bank has a small portion of the off-site sign. Elam was not sure why staff would allow
two monuments rather than pylon and monument. Elam stated that the pylon sign is
elevated, which allows better visibility, whilc thc brick would be morc obtrusive.
Grittman stated that in general, the City would seck Icss elevated signage and noted that
the wall signage on the building is also an elevated sign. In fact, monument signs arc less
obtrusivc and blend in with site improvcments. Elam noted that tenants on lots one and
two would not havc signage in addition to thc shared monument. If the pylon is not
allowed, they may seek additional signagc.
Hcaring no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Suchy commented that she prefers the reeommendcd monument sign package. Suchy
inquired whether the picture presented reflects the landscaping that will appear on site.
Elam stated that they will work with staff to upgrade thc landscape plan. Suchy asked if
thc sign would display bank messagcs. Elam stated that it would.
.
Dragstcn askcd if the monument sign would be for two additional users outsidc ofthc
bank lot and if Premicr owns the other two lots. Elam stated that they do not own the
other two lots and that thc monument sign would include those uscrs. Dragsten stated
that the Planning Commission has no way of knowing what square footage thc eventual
users would need for signage and stated that in that case, the pylon may make the most
scnse.
Fric asked ifthe PUD allows the hcight tlexibility to thrce stories. Grittman responded
that it does.
Posusta stated that he would likc to see additional architectural features on this building,
espccially because of the area and the height of the building. Frie asked ifthc additional
landscaping required will satisfy somc concerns over appearance. Posusta stated that
only landscaping is difficult because the building is three stories tall.
Frie inquired whether the bank will be using all ofthe building. Elam commented that
space in the building would bc rented. Frie asked if the Commission has any authority
ovcr who rents space. Grittman stated that as long as they are permitted uscs, they are
allowable as renters.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD BASED
ON ^ FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE
CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. The shared access easement agreement for the private drive shall be reviewed in detail and
approved by the City.
.
8
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
.
12.
13.
10.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
The applicant should eliminate two (2) parking stalls on the southeastern portion of the site
that do not meet the Ordinance requirements.
All striped areas within the parking lot shall be landscaped and surrounded by raised concrete
curb.
The entire perimeter parking lot shall be curbed, although the future expansion area to the
north may be roIled asphalt until that parcel is developed.
A minimum of six (6) parking islands shall be identified within the parking lot area.
The bank drive-isles shall be a minimum often (10) teet in width from the edge of curb to thc
edge of curb.
The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the
perimeter of the building and site area, near both entrances, and near the trash enclosure. All
landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of one year landscaping
guarantee. Tree and shrub plantings should exceed the ordinance requirements to support the
use of PUD on this site.
The photometric plan shall be revised to meet the maximum foot candle requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant shall provide building details of the trash enclosure for review and approval.
The overall sign plan shall be reduced to include either two monument signs or one pylon sign
within the site area.
The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement with the City to
be drafted by the City Attorney.
Additional comments from City Staff, Planning Commission or City Council.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCIIY.
Frie asked Dragsten if he wanted to amend the motion to address Council member
Posusta's comments. Dragsten stated that he did not want it as part of the formal motion,
but that it should be noted as a rccommendation of the Commission.
MO'fION CARRIED.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for a drive-
UP convenience fast food establishment in a B~4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant:
Arby's/RTM Restaurant Properties CUP
Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed site is also on thc Prairie
Ponds 2nd Addition plat, located at the northwest intersection of State Highway 25 and
School Blvd. In terms of stacking space, general site access, parking rcquirements and
sctbacks, Grittman indicated that the applicants meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Grittman stated recommended that a sidewalk connection from the sidewalk on School
9
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
Blvd to the front sidewalk area and a sidewalk connection from Deegan A venue to the
internal sidewalk through the parking lot delineator. Grittman also recommended that
additional plantings be considered between the building and Highway 25 and around the
trash enclosure area to screen the view of this structure from traffic. Grittman stated that
the lighting plan should be significantly scaled back to meet the City's lighting
regulations.
Grittman noted that the site is a part of a PUD, which is proposed to have additional
signage for business occupants along the main entrance from Deegan A venue. As a part
of a PUD, staff would recommend that the applicant's requested pylon sign be redesigned
to be a monument sign along Highway 25. Grittman noted that the proposed sign plan
exceeds ordinance standards along all three street frontages.
Suchy inquired whether an additional condition could require that the exterior trash
enclosure be constructed of the same materials. Grittman stated that such enclosures are
normally ofthe same material, although staff is also recommending additional
landscaping. Suchy asked ifthere would be a place for outdoor seating as an additional
landscaping treatment rather than accommodating more parking than required by code.
Grittman noted that the plans illustrate a well-landscaped site.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.
John Bogart, Bogart Pederson Engineering, spoke to the Commission on behalf of
Arby's. Bogart responded to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z, stating that the
majority of conditions can and will bet met. Bogart stated that in response to Suchy's
comments, the trash enclosure is of the same material as the building. Bogart stated that
he will also discuss with RTM whether they will add outdoor seating. In response to the
comment on signage, Bogart stated that the applicant would like the pylon rather than
monument signage for visibility and cost purposes.
Frie asked Grittman if staff is receptive to changing condition two, or working it out prior
to Council Bogart stated that the client's request is to have a pylon, which they feel is
consistent with area. Frie asked Grittman if Commission has the latitude to allow pylon
the pylon. Grittman indicated that they do have that authority.
Ken Dolarski, Arby's representative, provided further detail on the building's
architecture.
Dragsten asked if the entrance drive coming in is a private entrance and if not, whether
there would be a maintenance agreement. Grittman stated that a cross easement is
required as it is a private drive.
Spartz asked the Arby's representatives for a timeframe on the project. Dolarski stated
that he expects the permit materials to be submitted within two weeks. Once approved,
they would have a 90 day construction period.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ZONING REGULATIONS, WITH THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN EXHIBIT Z AS
FOLLOWS:
10
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
I. Adding a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the restaurant from the pathway on School Blvd
and from the sidewalk on Deegan A venuc.
.
2. Work with the City to ensure that site lighting will be in conformance with city regulations.
3. Revise the landscape plan to add shrub plantings along Highway 25
4. Revise the landscape plan to add significant shrub plantings around the trash enclosurc.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for first-floor
residential development and Preliminary Plat for a four-unit townhome development in the
CCD (Central Community District). Applicant: Dennis James Custom Builders
Grittman presented staff report, stating that Dennis James is proposing a four-unit project
of two twin-home buildings on a parcel along 6th Street between Maple and Linn Streets.
The project area is zoned CCD, Central Community District, which requires a conditional
use permit to allow ground floor residential based, subject to consistency with the
downtown revitalization plan, and density restrictions. Grittman noted that the property
is surrounded by residential uses on the north, cast and west (single family) and the south
(multiple family).
.
Grittman repol1ed that the property is only permitted a maximum of2 units although the
plan does meet the 1I10re general twin home density requirements of 6,000 square feet pCI'
unit. Grittman explaincd that the applicant had previously been granted a CUP for first
floor residential and a simple subdivision to accommodate two single-falI1ily homes. To
accomplish a higher density, the applicant would need to consider a PUD to grant
flexibility to the density allowances. Grittman explained that to allow a PUD, the City
would need to consider standards for driveway length, access drive width, and front and
rear yard setbacks. The proposcd plan does not meet those requirements. Grittman stated
that due to those factors, as well as the density issue, staff is recommending denial.
Chairman Frie opened public hearing.
Donald Doran, 515 Maple, expressed his concern about the proposed density, referred to
the previous approval for single family homes. Doran stated that he speaks on behalf of
a number of neighbors in that they had no objections with two single family homes, if
they were in compliancc.
Patch exprcssed his concern that the applicant was not available to comment. Patch
noted that the appl icant had been in to discuss the staff report and felt that he had been
somewhat misled in terms of staff direction on this property.
Simola addressed the storm sewer issues for the area. Simola indicated that hc had
received a calls from a neighbor to the east regarding this project. The City had also
received a comment letter from that neighbor, which was available for Commission's
review. Simola stated that both he and thc City Engineer feel the system as proposed will
not take care of the run-off.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed public hearing.
.
11
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
Hilgart stated that as the applicant is not meeting any of the requirements of the PUD
standards for such a proposal, it doesn't seem to make sense to table to allow for an
application. Dragsten agreed, stating that four units seem to be more than what the site
can take. Suchy and Frie also indicated that they would be inclined to deny the request.
Posusta stated that he agrees with Patch and Simola regarding storm water issues.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT nIE PLAT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSITY, NOR WITH THE CITY'S PUD
REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAY DEPTH, PRIVATE STREET WIDTH, GARAGE
SEPARATION, OR USABLE REAR YARD SPACE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
12.
Public Hearing -- Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development allowing for modifications to R-2A standards
including specification of e.arage placement for single-family homes. Applicant: MW
Johnson Construction
Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the project had originally included a series
of side-loaded garages. Due to the fact that utility improvements were put in locations
impairing side loaded garages, the applicants are seeking an amendment to re-locate their
side-loaded styles to other lots, reducing the total number of side loads. Grittman stated
that staff did note a couple of other considerations as part ofthis request. The ordinance
requires that front-loaded garages be no more than 5 feet than front of house, allowing for
a narrower street size. The applicant's plans do not meet this requirement. Grittman
stated that it is important to clarify that this requirement is still part of the R2-A
requirements for this development. Assuming that all ordinance standards not referenced
specifically in the PUD apply, Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Mark Gergen, representing MW Johnson, stated his appreciation for Commission's
consideration of the request. Gergen indicated that as Sunset Ponds was moving through
the planning process, the R-2A district was relatively new and untested. A lot of details
on how the homes and lots were to look had not been worked out; they have been
working with staff to clarify those details. Gergen commented that the requirement that
the garage cannot be more than 5' closer to the street than the home is something they
were not aware of. Gergen noted that they have 53 homes in the R-2A, of which they
eliminated half of the garage doors facing the front. In terms of the conditions, they
intend to meet them and would like an approval. IIowever, Gergen did express his
opinion that the 60% front yard in garden requirements seemed excessive and prohibitive.
Gergen indicated that they are willing to go through the plans with staff.
Frie stated his opinion that that the developer has deviated from what was originally
presented to the Commission, and that the developer had shown a total disregard for the
conditions approved initially. Frie commented that the developers should have shown
lnore adherence to original plan. Frie asked Patch if it was builder or developer who is
12
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
responsible for problem that causes these variations. Grittman elarified that small
utilities were simply placed in the wrong locations. In contrast to the larger services,
small utility companies, such as cable companies, aren't always looking at the side-load
plan; there wasn't necessarily an intent not to follow the plan.
Frie asked about the unit designs. Grittman responded that R-2A and Sunset Ponds were
moving along at the same time, although Sunset Ponds is a complex PUD with design
standards that may deviate or be in addition to base zoning standards. Gergen
commented that they have small lot single family in many other communities and in their
experience shared driveways didn't work.
Patch referred to the architectural standards for the entire development and suggested that
both the developer and City had different preconceived notions about what the R-2A
district was intended to look like. Patch stated that in examining this issue, the door is
open to architectural upgrades.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Suchy indicated that she appreciated the intent of the R-2A standards. Even so, she is
concerned that with these designs; the garage appears to be the whole house, even with
side-load. Suchy stated she doesn't object to changing the location of side-loaded homes,
but did state that she is not happy with garages that far out. Gergen stated that they are
open to architectural detailing.
Spartz asked how many homes have been completed. Gergen responded that perhaps 3
in the R-2A; the majority have not been started.
.
Dragsten commented on Pateh's statement about what Commission thought it was
getting. Dragsten stated that the overall size of the home seems very small. Patch
indicated that the building depal1ment went through each plan submitted so far, and each
met the very base requirements. Dragsten stated that in that case, the Commission may
need to reconsider its minimum district requirements. Patch stated that the concern isn't
so mueh size as design. The design submitted so far are entry level basic in his opinion.
Hilgart questioned whether Grittman feels a superior product is really being achieved
with the PUDs the City is approving. Grittman commented that Sunset Ponds was the
first R-2A district in the City and it was difficult to measure at the time of approval.
Hilgart asked how the developer can they ask for forgiveness from the ordinance which
was in place when approved. Hilgart stated his frustration with PUDs.
Patch comll1ented that in a high-quality development, 60% front yard in garden is not
unreasonable. However, given the current situation moving toward stalier homes, he is
concerned about the 60% in terms of installation responsibility and maintenance.
Frie asked Gergen whether they could meet the conditions. Gergen responded that in the
case of condition !lumber 1, most of their plans do not meet this requirement. He is also
against the 60% landscape requirement.
Hilgart stated that if the developers cannot meet the superior product required by the
PUD, then they should have to stick to the current zoning designation.
.
13
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
Posusta stated that Council is not happy with the R-2A developments so far, nor with
Sunset Ponds in general. This is in response to what they are hearing from the public in
Monticello. He indicated that if the plat is wrong, they should change it, the City
shouldn't have to accommodate the developer. Posusta asked where the extensive
landscaping is on the benning along 1-94.
Patch indicated that the landscaping has sureties behind it. Gergen stated that tree
planting on the nerm will be occurring in the next week. Grittman reported that a specitie
landscape plan was approved for that berm, as well as for the entire project.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED
IN TIlE STAFF REPORT AND LISTED BELOW.
I. All garage doors must meet a setback of at least 25 feet to permit parking in driveways that
will not interfere with sidewalks or the public right of way. The 15 foot setback in the R-2A
zone is intended to apply to living space or side-loaded garages only.
2. No garage door area may comprise more than 50% ofthe width of the building, except when
located at least 10 teet behind the tront line of the building.
3. All structures must have a front till;ade of20% brick or stone (10% if stucco or real wood
comprises at least 70%)
4_ Garages must be no less than 450 square feet in tloor area.
5. Buildings must be no less than 1,200 square feet in qualified tinished floor area.
6. Roof pitch must be no less than 6/12.
7_ The applicant work with the developer to determine an appropriate landscape plan as intended
in the R-2A district.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRYE. MOTION CARRIED.
13.
Consideration to review a sketch plan for a detachcd townhome development in a PZM
(Performance Zone- Mixed) District. Applicant: Greater MN Housing Fund
Hal Klapp, represcntative for the Greater MN Housing Fund, addressed thc Commission.
Klapp commentcd on the discussion regarding R-2A ordinances. Klapp noted that
Montiecllo is in the forefront in crcating those standards, as he has been trying to
cOllvince other communitics that of more traditionally designed neighborhoods. Klapp
encouraged the Commission to continue their enforcement of the standards, and not to
abandon them due to situations where they have not been met.
Klapp referred to the sketch plan included in the Commission's packets, stating that it is
retlectivc of a site plan presented to City staff and consultants for review. Klapp noted
that thc site does havc some constraints.
Klapp statcd that it is GMHF's goal to provide safe, quality housing, while making
efficient use ofland. Klapp provided a brief presentation illustrating GMIIF's projects in
other cconomic growth communities. Klapp presented a typical home design, whieh was
a two-story with front porch and rear-loaded garage with alley.
Klapp stated that it is GMHF's intcnt to get a feel from Planning Commission as to
whether it would be willing to accept the projcct at a formal level. Klapp noted that they
have been working with other landowners in the Elm and 71h Street area to develop a
comprehensive land-use program.
14
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
.
Frie commented that in considering this type of project, it makes a big difference where it
is located and the type of unit. Frie asked how many acres were represented on the site
plan. Klapp answered approximately 6, on which they are proposing 27 units of single
family detached homes. Klapp stated that the majority of homes would be two-story.
Grittman stated that this use would be consistent with the requirements ofthe PZM
district, which would actually allow a higher density than proposed. Grittman did note
that the R-2A ordinance is designed to discourage splits.
Hilgart referred to the Rollings PUO project presented previously, which was similar.
Hilgart stated his recollection was that the unit count was an issue in that approval.
Grittman confirmed that, stating that 4 units per acre would be considered acceptable in
this area and noted that the Rollings site, or Ruff Auto property, is adjacent to this site.
Klapp asked what the City's vision for the site was. Hilgart stated that detached single
family shown seel11ed a good fit.
Dragsten asked if this development would be association maintained. Klapp stated that it
would be. Oragsten asked if the developer would also be the builder. Klapp responded
that GMHF is the developer, and they work with local builders. Oragsten asked if the
homcs are manufactured. Klapp replied that all are stick-built and built to Enterprise
Foundation standards, offering incentives for sustainablc building.
.
Klapp indicated that thc development is intended to be a mix of work force and market
rate housing. Dragsten asked how a determination is made as to which group gets
what.housing. Klapp answered that GMHF will work with builders to do half ofthe
housing at an affordable range or about $185,000. GMHF will work with buyers to
provide financing to bring the price point down, while still meeting design standards.
Klapp stated that the market rate and work force housing is virtually the same home, with
different fapde treatments. Dragsten commented that the concept seems like a good one.
Fric asked ifGMHF acts as real estate agents. Klapp stated that they work with local
realtors.
Spartz asked if there is an alley, would it be association maintained. Klapp confirmed.
Suchy stated that she likes the project idea and the association.
Posusta asked t()[ the approximate square footage of the units. Klapp stated that it ranges
from 1200 square feet, with the current average market rate at $185,000. Klapp noted
that there are price limits for meeting "affordable" criteria. In the case of the affordable
housing, it is a deferred second mortgage that the homeowners are responsible to pay
back. Klapp asked if having affordable housing was a concern for the Commission,
noting that residents must meet a certain wage level to qualify.
Fric stated that the attitude ofthe Council is that Monticello needs unafforable housing.
However, the Commission realizes that with Wal-Mart and other retail being developed
in town, the City must also be able to provide work force housing.
.
15
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/05
Frie asked if there are covenants in the GMHF developments. Klapp indicated that there
would be, as thcy were requested by market rate buycrs.
Grittman stated that the next step was for the sketch to be presented to the Council. After
their reaction, GMHF could choose to make a formal application.
14.
Consideration to review for recommcndation a street lighting policy.
John Simola presented the original street lighting policy, which was passed in 1971 and
modificd in 1974 and 1989. Simola stated that he would like to see the policy modified
to adjust the spacing and fixture styles. Simola summarized that under the current policy
all intersections, curves in the road, changes in grade and any other safety areas arc lit.
Beyond that, spacing in rcsidential areas is a straight 700'. Simola noted that currently,
developers have to upfront the cost of the wire, pole and fixture.
Simola reported that he is seeking to update the policy to include a 350' spacing and
switch fixture types, which he is researching. Simola stated that staff is seeking
Commission's direction on this due to the new development angle. Simola cXplaincd that
this policy would provide more uniform and better lighting in new residential areas. At a
future point, it would go back to Council for approval to retrofit other neighborhoods.
Simola asked the Commission for a motion to recommend amendment of the policy.
Posusta asked about light pollution. John said the idea is to light only the street; all
fixtures are now cut off lighting with no glare.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER? TO RECOMMEND THA T THE REQUESTED
CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE STREET LIGHTING POLICY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER? MOTION CARRIED.
15. Adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER?
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER? MOTION CARRIED.
16
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - OS/23/05
4.
Public Hearine:: Consideration of a reauest for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat,
and Rezonine: to B-4, General Business. for a parccllocated in the southeast
auadrant of 1-94 and County Hie:hwav 18. Applicant: Shawn Weinand. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are seeking approyal of a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Rezoning of
property adjacent to the new interchange location at 1-94 and County Highway 18.
The property is currently zoned R-PUD, and the applicants haye requested a
commercial zoning to accommodate a range of potential retail or service uses that
would benefit from the interchange construction.
The applicants have provided a plan that divides the property into a series of outlots.
Final development plans are to determine the grading and utility service needs of the
property. Those plans are not yet available, pending the identification of the end
users of the land.
ft is necessary to proceed with the platting and zoning of the property at this time,
however, to facilitate the finalization of the interchange financing plans. The
proposed zoning change would be consistent with commercial uses located on the
west and northwest quadrants of the interchange, and could be viewed as consistent
with the City's land use policy for development of interchange access at this site.
Because the property abuts residential uses to the east, a change to commercial will
result in the need to consider the City's bufferyard regulations at the time of
development. However, site planning details such as the bufferyard would be
planned for and reviewed at the time of a final development proposal.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Rezoning from R-PUD to B-4, General Business
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the
proposed use is consistent with the zoning and development of other
neighboring property surrounding the interchange.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the
change would conflict with the institutional and residential uses to the
south and cast.
Decision 2: Preliminary and Final Plat
Special Planning Commission Agenda - OS/23/05
.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat, based on a
finding that the plat is necessary to finalize planning for the interchange,
and based on a condition that the applicants provide complete site
planning details, including grading, drainage, and utilities, at the time of
development.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat, based on a
finding that the applicant should provide more detailed information to
support the application.
ST AFF RECOMMEND A TION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and plat. Although the preliminary plat
does not have the level of detail required by the full subdivision regulations, the City
can make final plat detail a condition of approval, and write this condition into the
development agreement. In this way, the City will have the opportunity to review site
development plans prior to construction.
.
With regard to the rezoni ng, one of the purposes of the interchange is to increase
accessibility to land uses south of the interstate, including commercial activity. A
commercial zoning at this corner appears to be the most e1Tective use of this property
~~. superior to the current residential zoning due to proximity to the freeway, both from
a noise and visibility standpoint.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Plan
B. B-4 Zoning District Regulations
.
2