Planning Commission Agenda 10-01-2002
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - October), 2002
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Council I ,iaison:
Staff:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Clint Herbst
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, John Glomski and Steve Grittman
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held September 3,
2002.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public lIearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval. Applicant:
Glen Posusta.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for re-zoning from R-1 to R-2A. Applicant:
Tom Holthaus, West Side Market.
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the sign regulations
governing quantity and size of signage Jar large site, multi-tenant commercial developments.
Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC (Denny Hecker).
8. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and variance
allowing accessory structure in excess of 1500 sq. f1. Applicant: Randy Ruff
9. Discussion regarding temporary sign regulations as they pertain to multi-tenant comlnercial
developments.
10. Review building plans for consistency with Autumn Ridge PUD requirements.
11. Sunny Fresh Foods has applied for a special meeting on Monday, October 14, 2002, prior to
the City Council meeting to discuss amendments to their CUP to allow truck parking, bulk
LP storage, service bay additions and paving for bulk waste transport, sidewalks and
landscaping. Please let staff know if you will not be able to attend so that we can determine
that there will be a quorum.
12. November Planning Commission meeting date contlict with City Council.
13. Adjourn
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - September 3,2002
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Diek Frie, Robbie Smith. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council
Liaison Clint Herbst
Lloyd Hilgart
leffO'NeilL Fred Patch. John Glomski and Steve Grittman
Absent:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held AUl!ust 6. 2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 6. 2002. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
3. Consideration of addin!..! items to the allenda.
None
4.
Citizens comments.
None
5. Public Hearinl! ~ Consideration of a request for variance allowing a re-subdivision of Lot 1.
Block 3 and Outlot A. Groveland 2nd Addition to create two buildable parcels. Applicant:
Ocello. LLC
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the report noting the request for a replat which
would result in 2 buildable lots. Grittman advised that the City and Planning Commission
would need to find a hardship that interferes with reasonable use of this property. He added
that the lots could be combined. but that at this point in time it would not make sense to
realign the entire plat. A concern in addition to the hardship is that when the lot width is
narrowed. it narrows the building pad, and the depth. with the power line easement in the
back. would make f()r a very small buildable area on the property. inconsistent with the R-I
standards.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand, Ocello. LLC, provided a history of
Outlot A which originally was dedicated as a trail easement and somewhere along the way
was eliminated. Unfortunately this was not taken off the plat and was only discovered just
recently. Weinand advised that they did try to buy back Lot 33 and Lot 1. but were only
able to purchase one. He added that they could give the lots to the two property owners on
each side but that would add little value to their lots. and they would prefer to combine them
and build.
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
.
Chair Frie then closed the puhlic hearing. There was discussion regarding the other lot
widths. irthere were homes already on the remaining lots. and also how the situation was
created. It was noted that the Outlot was actually missed hy both the City and the
Developer's engineer. advising that MFRA stated when the park trail was eliminated. the
Outlot 'vvas overlooked 011 the plat. Jeff O'Neill stated the park trail was initially placed on
the power line corridor hut was later moved to a sidewalk. stating the City was involved in
that decision.
They also discussed total building area and Wein~nd stated they would build to meet
standards. Dick Frie asked why the applicant was asking to vary from the new standards,
which he added had taken them a great amount of time creating. Weinand did not feel that
was the case. Frie also asked why this was not re-platted and Weinand stated they did not
become aware of this until just recently. He also added they have outlots for trails, storm
sewer, and ponding, and until they started processing deeds t()f the outlots, it was not
discovered that the park trail had been moved. Frie asked Weinand what would be his
hardship and Weinand stated it would be a financial hardship if the lot is not a buildable lot.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
REPLAT AND VARIANCES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ORDINANCE TEST
FOR PHYSICAL HARDSHIP IS NOT MET. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
.
There was further discussion regarding finding of hardship and Dragsten jelt the error was
on both the City's and the Developer's part. and telt that they could approve with a condition
such as the need to meet the R-] A standards. O'Neill stated that it would actually be R-I
standards that apply. not R-I A. Weinand stated it would be difficult to meet the R-I A
standards as they are already size restricted. Clint Herbst added that possibly Dragsten was
referring to the R-2A standards, and Grittman then advised of those standards. Dragsten
clarified that he was talking about the 80 it widths. It was stated by Weinand that the home
would be approximately 1.050 sq. ft. Smith again asked about standards and Grittman
advised or the newly installed standards, stating a minimum of 70 ft widths and 10,000. sq ft
of area. Smith telt that Weinand would be close to the average if combining the whole area.
Carlson added that the lot is only 123 feet short. and it may be better to compromise 'vvith the
developer and have him move forward. Robbie Smith stated that based on the idea of the lot
widths being an average he would rescind his motion, as did Chair Frie.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TI-IE REPLAT AND VARIANCES TO TfIE LOT WIDTH AND AREA. BASED ON A
FINDING THAT ON AVERAGE FOR THIS PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THE
LOT DOES FOLLOW THE NEW STANDARDS, TI-IE 60 FEET LEFT OVER WOULD
BE UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE FOR REASONABLE USE, AND WITI-I TIlE
UNDERSTANDING THAT NO VARIANCES WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR
SETBACKS TO ACCOMMODA TE THE REDUCED BUILDABLE AREA, WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE HOUSE FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW
STANDARDS. RICI-IARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
6.
Public Hearin!! - Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development allowin!!
expansion of auto sales and displav area on an interim basis. Applicant: Dave Peterson Ford
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the report advising of the applicant's original
request. He noted that the request for paving of the area on the original map was due to
visibility. Grittman also stated that the applicant submitted a revised plan after reviewing
the staff report and has withdrawn his request for the use of the areas on the north and east
boundaries. He is proposing to extend his storage area north with the addition of 2 rows, and
he is proposing crushed concrete versus paving for storage of vehicles. The applicant has
estimated 2 to 5 years before a new dealership w01,1ld possibly be in place, therefiJre the
request for the interim use. Grittman stated the City is reluctant to get into a temporary use
as it becomes an enforcement issue. A second issue was the new standard regarding the
sales lot size requirement of 15% building area ratio.
Grittman summarized the conditions listed in Exhibit Z stating that the use would be on the
southern portion only, grading the remainder of the lot and seeding, and await future
development. Item 2 of the conditions would not be relevant. as well as item 3. Item 4
would state a distance of approximately 170 feet and Grittman was unsure of item 6 stating
that lighting may be the only issue in this condition. The remainder of the conditions would
be effective.
Jeff O'Neill added that the original proposal was changed after statT comments, and that is
why it is being looked at by the Planning Commission, stating it would be the Planning
Commission's decision whether they wanted to look at the first proposal as well.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Milton Olson, Olson & Son's Electric, stated that they
are concerned with the storm sewer and how it would drain as they do get runoff with heavy
rains. He did state that there have been no problems so far but they are concerned once it is
leveled off that there would be a drainage problem. It was stated that there currently is a
holding pond between Weinand's property and Olson's property. Olson felt there would be
a potential problem coming across Marvin Road. Grittman stated that any grading of the site
would have to be approved by the City Engineer and he felt that the Engineer was familiar
with this and would be working with the applicant to address any concerns.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding the reason for
withdrawing the original request and the applicant stated it was due to the request fiJr paving.
He came up with an alternative plan after receiving the statT report listing comments and
conditions. O'Neill advised that it was not staffs position to state if the applicant's original
request would or would not be approve. Peterson felt that \vhatever staff stated in the report
the Planning Commission would follow, to which statT and Planning Commission disagreed.
Peterson added a correction on what his future intent was for the property. He stated if he
\vas not successful in getting a new franchise in 3 years. he \yoldd find another use for that
property.
Frie asked Peterson if he had the list of conditions and could he work with them. eliminating
items 2, 3. and 6, and changing item 4 to read "120 feet to 140 feef'. Peterson clarified that
-3-
.
.
.
Plann ing COIllIll issioll M illutes - 09/03/02
he was actually asking for 200 feet. Also in regard to lighting, he \vould put additional lights
on the back or the existing light poles. There was no further discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
AMENDMENT AND INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR DAVE PETERSON TO
ACCOMMODATE TEMPORARY AUTOMOBILE DISPLAY AND STORAGE
CONSISTENT WITH THE SURVEY DkrED APRIL 27. 2000. AND CONSISTEN"r
WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT AS SUMMARIZED IN
EXHIBIT Z. WITH CORRECTIONS AND CIIANGES MADE. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Fred Patch, Building Official, as Exhibit Z related to the
entire PUD, stating a landscaping plan had not been supplied and there had been previous
issues with landscaping on the Dunlo site. Patch stated that although no building permit was
required, a grading permit would be and noted that some grading had already taken place on
the newly created storage area and that the City Engineer had been active in looking into
this. Patch suggested that prior to this item going to City Council. a landscaping plan be
submitted for the entire area, as well as assurity of installation and maintenance. It was
clarified by both O'Neill and Peterson that this matter was taken care of and Peterson is in
the process of landscaping the Dunlo site, stating he just purchased the site earlier that day.
Patch also added that there was no curbing required in the list of conditions and felt it should
be as in the case of any other development in the City. Also, the use of the display area
should be subject to a grading permit supplied to the City Engineer. O'Neill asked Grittman
about limitations of access to and from that site and Grittman stated that it is presumed that
access would be fi'om the existing lot. and not very accessible from other areas.
Frie asked Patch if he was involved in previous discussions regarding the list of conditions
in the exhibit provided to the Planning Commission and he stated he was not. Frie asked
that conditions/exhibits be provided to all stafl' prior to agenda packets.
Carlson added in regard to itemIofthe conditions that this would be temporary, and he.
envisioned that at that time this could be combined to one site. At that time curbing would
be required. he also agreed to landscaping but again noted this is a temporary use of the site.
Dragsten questioned the landscaping requirement on the Dunlo property and O'Neill advised
that this was relatively minor. some finished screening, and that this could be worked out
between stan: City Planner and Mr. Peterson.
There was no further discussion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
7.
Public I-Iearin!l - Consideration of a request for a zonin!l map amendment re-zonin!l a parcel
from 1-2, heavv industrial to one or a combination of the following districts: B-4. B-3. B-2.
and I-I A. Applicant: Planning Commission, Citv of Monticello
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, provided the report advising that this sile is
currently zoned 1-2, which extends to an area surrounded by B-3 and I-I^- and that the uses
in the 1-2 are not compatible with the surrounding uses. O'Neill also advised that the
-4-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
property owner. Mr. Lundsten, had presented a letter in favor of the re~zoning. He also
stated that staff recommends re-zoning to 8-4 as it is evident that Monticello is becoming
more attractive to large seale commercial development. The proposed rezoning will support
this trend and thus encourage economic development and expansion of tax base. In the
event that the cOlnmercial development does come to fruition, or if this site becomes
attractive to a desirable industrial prospect. then the site could be rezoned accordingly.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was thcn
closed. John Lundsten. property owner, confirmed that he was in support of the re-zoning.
Dragsten did not feel that 8-4 would be most appr9priate. but felt 1-1 A would allow more
flexibility. stating B-4 seemed more highway commercial. Grittman advised that B-4 is a
general business district, rather than highway business. Carlson questioned if 8-4 relied on
Highway frontage and it was stated no. Smith questioned if the IDC had looked at this and
O'Neill stated they have not gotten any input from them. but there may be interest. Smith
also asked if there were any thoughts on this in regard to the IDC's req uest for more
industrial land. Frie stated this re-zoning follows the comp plan and also that it allows
flexibility.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE REQUEST TO RE-lONE FROM 1-2 TO 8-4. BASED ON THE FINDING THAT
THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
COMPATIBLE WITH THE GEOGRAPIUC AREA AND CI-IARACTER OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA. WILL NOT RESULT IN Tl-IE DEPRECIATION OF
ADJOINING LAND VALUES. AND THE NEED FOR THE USE IS SUFFICIENTLY
DEMONSTRATED. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
8.
Update ree.ardiIH! consideration of a reClUest to rezone land from R-3, Multiple Familv
R.esidential to PUD. Planned Unit Development to accommodate a recreation center and
commercial development.
Steve Grittman advised that the concerns of the neighbors at the public hearing had bee!"!
addressed and noted again that staff felt this type of development would have less of an
impact than an R-3. multi~family development. They did look at traffic issues more closely,
stating that multi-family development would generate approximately 2,400 daily trips. It
was noted that an arena has dillerent traffic generations with less than 200 trips on an
average day. On game days there could be an additional 450 to 600 trips. which is still
about 1/3 of \\'hat a residential project would generate.
Chair Frie clarified that this was not a continued public hearing, but rather a tabled item. He
asked if other sites had been pursued and O'Neill advised that The Pointe Group was in
attendance and \vould provide an update on that. Frie then clad tied with staff and Planning
Commission that if rezoning to PUD, they would not necessarily have to state what would
be going into that PUD. Grittman concurred. Frie stated that the reason he states this on
record is that they do SUppl)rt a hockey and soccer arena. but not necessarily on this site.
Smith stated that one of the concerns of the residents at the previous meeting was if this was
rezoned and the arena did not go in on that site, could the developers put something else on
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
.
that site. and Fric stated that was not the intent. Herbst stated that the City has control of the
property and has control over what is allmved on that site. Dragsten asked if the Planning
Commission would ultimately have to state what would be approved for the pun site.
Grittman stated they would and that would occur at a public hearing.
Al Gagnon. The Pointe Group. Minnetonka. introduced himself and the rest of their team
working on this project. Gagnon stated it is the only site that will work for the entire project
team which includes The Pointe Group. Silver Creek Real Estate Development, the Hockey
Association and the Soccer Association. Carlson asked Gagnon to address the concerns of
the residents that were stated at the public hearing,_as well as go over site selections and
dialogue regarding surrounding facilities. Herbst also added that the main concern was if
this was the only site that would work for all parties involved, and that has been answered by
Gagnon. Bill Whittlock of RSP Architects. Gregg Engle, Hockey Association President,
Kent Johnson. Monticello Soccer Association President and Pat Cruikshimk. Silver Creek
Real Estate were present to answer questions as well.
.
Gagnon advised how they had selected this particular site, stating that initially they looked at
several communities and sites that potentially would work, such as Becker and Big Lake, as
well as Monticello. He advised that they found staff in Monticello were more receptive and
also the greater use by the Monticello I-lackey Association. Gagnon stated the Th Street site
supported 2 sheets of ice as well as an area for a soccer dome. The High School site did not
have that potential. Monticello Community Center site west of the center had issues with
parking and relocating current facilities. as "veil as acquiring additional land. The small
piece of land on Cedar and Dundas did not support the acreage. Highway 2S site had the
acreage. but the issues were that it did not support the commercial site that would be
important to them financially, and also it did not give the City ability to maximize the use of
that land.
Frie asked Gagnon if there were other communities that had arenas in residential areas, and
Gagnon listed many. Frie then asked which came first the residential or the hockey. and
Gagnon stated he could not say for sure. but that it is typical to find arena's in residentiql
areas. Gagnon then addressed the concerns from the residents at the previous public hearing.
. Traffic - Gagnon noted that Grittman had addressed that with statistics, and also they
believe this is a great use of the site and would potentially minimize traffic
compared to other potential projects.
Parking spaces/seats - Gagnon stated there would be ample on-site parking. again
stating that Th Street would be pushing through regardless of this project. and that the
traffic would predominantly be the residents coming to and from the arena.
.
Noise/hours of operation - Gagnon stated this could be addrcssed in an operating
agreement. Frie asked Engle about possible times of operation and he stated between
6 a.m. and 10 p.m.. adding that the younger players are not scheduled after 9 p.m.
Frie also asked if they could work w'ithin the operating hours of possibly 6 a.m. to 9
p.m. and Engle stated it was possible. It was clarified that this would not include
.
-6-
.
.
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 09/03/02
game nights. Gagnon added that he did not agree with 9 p.m.. but that they would
abide by hours or operation mutually agreed upon. Carlson added that the intent is to
help promote selling of ice time which Gagnon agreed and stated that there are times
when there are later hours. O'Neill asked Mr. Johnson about soccer hours and he
stated the soccer dome is a relatively new idea and they would have to work with
that. Frie stated that the Planning Commission fully supports making use of the
hours that would make the arena work.
.
Gagnon then asked Whittloek to address concerns with lighting and advise the layout
of the site. The remainder of the development is for future parking if needed, as well
as future development and ponding. The building faces ]lh Street and he supplied a
drawing showing what it could look like. lIe also provided potential elevations,
stating the site drops from 1-94 where the structure would begin: This would act as a
visual block as well as a sound barrier, to a certain degree. Gagnon also advised of
berming and landscaping that could address lighting issues as well. Green area along
7th Street could be landscaped addressing issues of traffic as well. Access points are
limited and landscaped parking could also be developed. They stated they are
putting this parcel to its highest and best use.
.
Frie confirmed with Patch items 6 & 7 of the concerns addressed in The Pointe
(TroUP'S information regarding lighting and headlights. Perimeter mounted lighting
would be in compliance, as well as perimeter bermed landscaping. Perimeter
lighting that casts toward the center of the lot would be appropriate and a
photometric plan would be required.
Gagnon addressed items 8 and 9 regarding parking on streets stating they would have
ample parking onsite.
· Lastly. there were concerns that games for both hockey and soccer would be going
on at the same time. It \vas noted that scheduling would be coordinated and also that
youth hockey does not generate a large number of people. Engle added that he ~elt
there would be non-board members managing the facility, including scheduling,
Johnson also stated that there would not be bleachers for seating in the dome and
therefore this signi ficantly limits the number of people that would be in attendance as
it would be standing room only.
Herbst again pointed out any concerns regarding traffic on 7'11 Street are a moot point in that
the street wi II be pushed through regardless of this project. They also questioned if a traffic
light would be installed at 7th Street and Co. Rd. 39. It was advised that this would be a
County issue and would be monitored. Herbst added that Chelsea Road being pllshed
through may help with traffic as \vcll.
.
Smith asked Cruikshank about the commercial site and what might possibly be placed there.
He stated that they preferred to have something family oriented. something that played off or
the sports complex theme where people could go to eat after dropping off children for
practice. as an example. He also stated this could change. perhaps a particular business sllch
- 7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
.
as an Applebees may not want to go in that particular spot. Smith asked if it \vould be
restaurant or retail and Cruickshank stated gas/convenience type facilities had not been
discLlssed. but could not slale for certain.
Frie asked Grittman again if the City Council had discretion as to what uses \vOLdd be
allow-ed in this PLlD and Grittman stated that was true. They again discussed the Highway
25 site which ()"Ncill stated there were larger developments looking at that site \vhich would
be more suitable. There was also a concern with traffic on 71h Street by Cub Foods area and
amount of congeslion with people trying to get to this site via that route. O'Neill advised
that the City Engineer has been looking at this andjt would need to be addressed with or
without the arena at this site.
Smith then stated a concern regarding speed on Co. Rd. 39 and Grittman advised that the
Sheriffs Department would take direction from City COLlneil and that it is an enforcement
issue. Grittman also stated that with additional traffic, it may actually help with reduction of
speed as there is a tendency to slow down when there is more tramc. Signals were also
discussed again.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF TilE CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RE-lONING. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
.
There was further discussion regarding that possibly this report should be made public 10 the
residents in attendance at the previous public hearing. O'Neill advised that this could be
summarized and provided to them. It was also noted the importance for them to realize the
amount of time spent addressing the issues raised by the residents at the previous meeting.
Smith stated that he was still concerned about the issues of the neighbors in that area.
Herbst added that the last time this property came before the Planning Commission and City
CounciL approximately 7 years ago. regarding a possible multi-family project the residents
were against that as well. Herbst felt it would be hard to say what the neighbors would be in
favor of or against.
Gagnon added that the current R-3 zoning does allow for this type of facility by CUP. By
going 10 a PUD they are really looking for a win/win project. He stated that the majority of
the questions were pertaining 10 the arena. not the potential commercial development again
stating the arena would be allO\ved by CUP in the current zoning. There \vas no further
discussion.
MOTION INCLUDED DIRECTING STAFF TO SUMMARIZE CONCERNS
ADDRESSED AT THE I'vIEETING AND PROVIDE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD VIA I'vlAILING. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 1 WITH ROBBIE SMITH
VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
.
-8-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
9.
Review new O\vner's plan for consistencv with ori!.!inal approved pun. Former Montissippi
Trail I own homes, now Timber Rid!!e.
Jeff ()'Nei II provided the report regarding the previous development that \vas approved by
the Planning Commission and the proposal by the new developer. Since the initial approval,
the previoLls developer. Harstad. is no longer involved and the development has been taken
over by Mike Schneider of Homestead Development. Schneider is proposing the same plat
design and landscaping, and has supplied staff with what he felt the homes would sell fl.)!',
which is slightly under what was initially proposed and approved. O'Neill advised that if
this is approved by the Planning Commission at thjs time, staff will forward to the City
Council on September 9 for their approval. the project would then move forward to final
stage PUD which includes execution of the development agreement and placement of
signatures on the final plat and initiation or public storm sewer improvement necessary to
support the project. I f the Planning Commission decides to bring it back in the form of a
public hearing, staff wi II proceed that route.
Frie asked Grittman about the building style and base price which varies from the original
plan, questioning if that would be cause for a new public hearing. Grittman stated it is the
discretion of the Planning Commission. Frie added that initially they had a lengthy public
hearing on this project and questioned if the neighbors needed to have input again, but again
Grittman stated that is the discretion of the Planning Commission. It was stated that the
primary change is building style, the values are not exactly the same, and it appears it is
more architectural. O'Neill added that the previoLls developer. Harstad, had stated at the
public hearing that these homes \vould be valued around $150,000 and later changed th<lt
number. but that the residents heard $150,000.
Mike Schneider. applicant. addressed the Planning Commission stating that at the time he
talked to staff he did not have the homes priced. What he provided was information on
homes that they had completed in another community that were similar. He also stated they
may be closer to $160.000. They designed them as closely to the previous development as
possible and their square footage may be somewhat larger.
Schneider's marketing representative added that they found the average selling price in
Monticello to be $150,000. Frie asked Schneider for his time frame on this project and
Schneider stated that he would like to proceed immediately. Dragsten asked about square
footage of the main k\'els and it was stated 1.275 to 1,300, all with 2 car garages, similar
stone fronts, ~lab on grade ramblers with walkouts or lookouts. It was confirmed that
Schneider had agreements with properties to the west of this parceL as did the previous
developer.
A lYIOTION WAS MADE B'{ ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PLANS .--\S CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PUD. ROBBIE
SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-9-
.
.
11.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
10.
Consideration of calline. for a publ ic hearilH! on temporarv SilW regulations as thev pertain to
multi-tenant commercial developments.
John Glomski. Planning l'echnician, provided the report noting that the reason for this item
was to start discussions and call for a public hearing. The current ordinance was not
designed to handle strip mall developments where there are multiple users on one lot.
Glomski provided examples for these developments such as limiting permits to lOpeI' year,
or per lot basis rather than per eaeh business, or limit and not have them at all. He asked for
direction from the Planning Commission.
O'Neill advised that they also have a provision that allows for 10 days for special occasions,
along with the 10 days per year. As of now they are assigning permits to the parcel and
allowing fix 40 days. O'Neill noted that keeping track of the way it is regulated now is
cumbersome and they would prefer to simplify the process. They would still be allowed
the 10 days for special events. It was noted that they have had a problem with not being able
to direct businesses at this time. It could be easier to have each individual business to have a
specific number of days. They discussed the Towne Centre site but Carlson felt that it being
an upscale facility, wound not have a multitude of signs.
Frie added that in keeping up with progress of the community we should have this availablc
tor staff and City Council to work with. He felt that this should be discussed further as well.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC IfEARING TO
DISCUSS TEMPORAR Y SIGN REGULATIONS AS THEY PERTAIN TO MUL TI-
TENANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Review sketch plan for quad home development at current site of the West Side Market.
JcfTO'Neill provided the report stating that Tom Holthaus, owner of the West Side Market
property, had provided a sketch plan showing three quad home structures on the proper~y on
which the West Side Market is currently located. The plan shows three access points at
CSAH 75 and one access point at Otter Creek Road. In order for this development to occur,
the property .viIl need to be rezoned from R-l to R-2 zoning designation and Holthaus will
need to get Planned Unit Development approval as well. The purpose of the sketch plan
review is to introduce the concept of development of a medium density development at this
R-l location.
The site is contained within the R-I district. Single family homes are adjacent on two sides
with CSAI-I 75 and Otter Creek Road forming the south and west boundary. The limits of
the R-2 district to the east extends to within a few hundred feet of the site and the school
property directly across CSAH 75 is zoned R-2.
^ major reason for the request is as follows: The current use (convenience store) is a lawful
non-conforming use that can not expand. Given the debt against the store, it is not
financially feasible to convert the site to a single family development. In other words,
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
.
development of the site \vith 12 units (3 quads) is feasible on a financial basis whereas
development of thc site under the current zoning (R-1 ) is not feasible.
As the Planning Commission knows. financial feasibility of a development is not a basis for
land use decision making. Planning Commission will want to analyze the request for
rezoning in terms of the standards for changing the code. such as determining if the rezoning
is consistent with character and/or geography of the area, would rezoning result in
depreciation of adjoining land values, is there a demonstrated need for this type of use, and
is the rezoning proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan.
According to Holthaus, the proposed development meets the minimum standards for density
in an R-2 development which is no more than one unit per 5,000. This will need to be
verified at concept PUD if the proposal advances that far.
If the discussion is generally positive, Holthaus will be completing the detail on a Planned
Unit Development application and will be applying for the rezoning. If the feedback is
negative, Holthaus will likely operate the convenience store as is.
.
Tom Holthaus, applicant. stated this was initiated this year as a result ot'the County's
decision to close off access on the west side of his property. Holthaus stated that the
decision to close off this access, along with a number of other issues. has made it
increasingly harder to operate his business at that location. lie stated if he were to lower the
density he would need some kind of financial assistance which he felt the City would not be
interested in giving him. Several of the members felt that the convenience store was a good
use for the neighborhood. Frie asked about the layout and the 3 proposed entrances, and
whether this would be allowed by the County. Holthaus was not sure at this time but he felt
that with the current zoning this actually reduces the number of driveways allowed and that
may be more desirable to the County. Grittman advised that the County \voldd most likely
look at it as starting from zero in regard to the number allowed. Herbst added that there \vas
a problem with a turn lane going into Otter Creek as well as into the convenience store.
Holthaus stated that the City was in process of obtaining some property at the corner ofthis
property to straighten out Otter Creek Road.
.
Holthaus advised the square footage of the homes would be approximately 1,170 sq. ft.. with
a 7 course crawl space. selling for approximately $160,000. He stated there are still details
to be worked out on the development side regarding demolition of existing building. He
added that they have built these same homes in Fergus Falls. Frie asked if there \vere any
setbacks/variances issues or was he just asking for re-zoning. Holthaus was not sure at this
time and O'Neill stated they have not looked at this in detail yet as they wanted direction
from the Planning Commission first regarding density before proceeding further. Holthaus
advised that there would be an association f()r the homes but that each one \vOldd be owned
individually. O'Neill noted that previously the applicant had come before the City Council
to expand his site but that was voted down by the Councilor that may have been another
option for him. I-Ie also noted that the ncighborhood was not really in t~lvor of the
convenience store in the first place and they are trying to work to make somcthing more
-11-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/03/02
desirable in the neighborhood.
There was further discussion regarding eliminating entrance/exit to the store, then increasing
driveways for homes. Holthaus added that although there would be more driveways there
would be less traffic entering/exiting them.
The Planning Commission was in favor of working with the applicant and advised Holthaus
to get approval from the County first and then come back to the Planning Commission for a
request for re-zoning. It was noted that Holthaus' request previously to expand his current
site was denied due to concerns in the neighborhoQd of intensifying that site. It was also
noted by Herbst that another reason was due to the need to straighten out Otter Creek Road
due to safety issues.
It was advised that the City has received complaints regarding the automatic gas pumps
which are lit and run 24 hours a day.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support the applicant's intent.
12. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
10:0 P.M. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
Recorder
-12-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/0 1 /02
5.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for a three lot
commercial subdivision known as the Amax Addition. Applicant: Glen Posusta.
(NAC{JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The proposed plat consists of land that fronts on Highway 25, including a portion of the
vacated Cedar Street alignment, south of Dundas Road, and north of the undeveloped
"Monticello Business Center" property. The plat would include a dedication of a small
portion necessary to accommodate Dundas Road, and would also dedicate the extension
of Cedar Street to the south through the plat.
The lots all meet the B-3 Zoning District standards. Lot 1, Block] at the corner of
Dundas and Trunk Highway 25 would he 1.85 acres in size. with approximately 180 feet
of frontage on Dundas Road and more than 330 feet on the new Cedar Street. Lot 2,
Block 1 in the southwest corner of the plat is 2.55 acres, with approximately 365 feet of
frontage on Cedar Street. Lot 1, Block 2 (to the south of the Amax Storage facility) is
4.88 acres in area, and also has approximately 365 feet along the cast side of Cedar
Street.
[.ot I, Block 2 is programmed for the expansion of the Amax Storage facility, as well as a
commercial development along Cedar Street consisting of retail huildings. The concept
site plan included with the project includes a driveway extension from Cedar Street into
the Amax expansion area. This component was not a part of the original review, and will
need separate PUD approval when the Amax project proceeds under a separate
application.
The Cedar Street alignment shown on the plat appears to be consistent with the feasibility
prepared by the City. Apart from the basic lot size and layout of the subdivision, the
application raises a few other issues:
I. There are no easements shown on the plat f(x stormwater drainage and/or utilities.
Easement needs can affect the layout of the plat, and should be incorporated into
the plat design as a part of any approval process.
2. The plat docs not include grading and drainage or utility plans - these plans are
required by the subdivision ordinance to ensure that the plat can be developed as
designed. Please note that the Cedar Street roadway and utility plans are being
prepared hy WSB in conjunction with the Cedar Street project. Therefore, the
applicant does not need to provide the plans, but he docs need to coordinate his
site development with city design work.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/01/02
.
<>
_L
Other improvements required by the City, including sidewalks and/or pathways
arc not shown on the plans, but they will be shown on the City plans for Cedar
Street.
4. The plat is unclear as to the proposed phasing. A part of any subdivision plat is
the provision of the streets and utilities serving the new lots. The City needs to
address this issue at the time of platting to avoid the sale of lots without actual
access to necessary services. This can be addressed by Posusta agreeing to fund
improvements completed by the City in conjunction with the Cedar Street project.
5. The City holds title to some of the land in the plat, particularly in I3lock 1. The
City's conveyance of this land to the applicant needs to be finalized prior to final
plat.
6. There are non-contlmlling signs and advertising clements within the boundaries
of the project, including a freestanding sign and lighted parked truck along
Highway 25. The exact location of these elements are not shown on the survey.
As a part of any land conveyance and platting approval, it would be expected that
any non-conformities are eliminated.
.
AL,TERNA TlVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the !\max Addition Preliminary Plat, subject to
conditions summarized in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Amax Addition, based on a finding that it is
premature due to the land ownership issues, and that the application is incomplete
as to engineering plans.
3. Motion to table action on the Amax Addition, pending submission of support
plans as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, including Grading and Drainage,
Street and Sidewalk Improvements, Phasing, and a revised plat drawing showing
required casements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Planning staff recommends approval of the plat, contingent on coordination of platting
process with City development of Cedar Street ROW. A Preliminary Plat is considered
to confer development rights to property, and should be granted only when the City is
confident that the development can proceed as proposed. Without coordination of site
2
Planning COIllIl1 ission Agenda - I % I /02
.
planning and Cedar Street, the City is required to assume that no problems will eome up
that would interfere with the public's provision of services to the project. The proposal
meets the concept approval granted previously and should bc approved ifpropcrly
coordinated with the Cedar Street improvemcnt project.
SUPPORTING DATA
I. Preliminary Plat, Datc 9/12102
2. Preliminary Site Plan, Datcd 9/12/02
.
.
">
-,
.
.
-
Planning COIllIll ission Agenda - J % 1/02
Exhibit Z, Amax Addition, Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval
I. City agrees to convey required land to the applicant to complete the plat.
2. The plat is redrawn to include the required easements, per City Engineer
recommendation.
3. The applicant submits grading and drainage plans to the City Engineer for approval. This
to allow coordination of site development with Cedar Street project.
4. The applicant coordinates site development with utility planning done by the City via the
Cedar Street improvement project.
5. The applicant submits street and sidewalk plans to the City Engineer for approval, or the
applicant petitions iiJr Cedar Street and utility improvements, and enters into an
assessment agreement relating to funding of Cedar Street project.
6. The applicant brings signage and truck parking into compliance with the City's zoning
ordinance.
Exhibit Z
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1 % 1/02
6.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request to rezone property from R-t. to R-2A to
accommodate an eie:ht-unit detached residential development. Applicant: Tom
Holthaus. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning to accommodate the redevelopment of the
West Side Market property. With the reconstruction ofI3roadway, Otter Creek Road will
be realigned to create a safer intersection. The County is also requiring the applicant to
close driveway aecess points to the West Side Market, and as such, the applicant believes
that the retail operation will no longer be viable. It should be noted that the existing use is
a non-conforming land use which has been unable to expand over the years due to the
inconsistent zoning.
The proposed project is a series of eight rambler-style single-family detached units served
by a private alley along the north side of the property. The project would require a PUD
approval due to the lack of individual street accesses fi.)r the units (the County wil1 not
permit direet aceess to County I Iighway 75). At issue is whether the R-2A District
supports the best land use for this site, and whether the proposed project would meet the
City's land use goals for this area or Broadway.
The purpose of the R-2A District is to provide a smal1-10t residential option where the
smaller lot sizes can help to otTset the cost of a higher level of amenities. The standards in
this district call for lot sizes of 45 feet in width and 7,500 square feet in area. The
proposed project meets these minimum standards, but only with the addition of a portion
of City property on the west side of the plat adjacent to Otter Creek Road. It is planning
staffs understanding that the realignment will need at least a portion of that right of way
for the road. Moreover, if the R-2A concept is approved, the side setback from Otter
Creek should meet the front setback of 15 feet - gi ven the access and traffic issues on
Broadway, a greater setback may be appropriate.
Zoning District changes require consideration of a number of specific criteria. These are
summarized as follows:
(1) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
(2) Geographical area involved
(3) Tendency to depreciate the area
(4) Character of the surrounding area
(5) Demonstrated need for such use
Planning (01)1111 ission Agenda - 1 % I /02
.
The neighhorhood is single family residential, developed under the traditional R-]
regulations. Across Broadway to the south is the Pincwood Elementary School.
Broadway is the primary route into the community from the northwest. The
Comprchensive Plan calls for Broadway to rcgain its traditional role as a grand entrance
street into Monticello. The current roadway improvements arc helping to facilitate that
conccpt with reconstruction, new lighting, and landscaping. Revitalization of the housing
stock is an important component of that goal as wcll.
The proposed project is a series of small-lot rambler houses served by a private al ley.
Planning staff is generally supportive of the conceptual layout, howevcr, consistency with
the goal statements in the Comprehensive Plan would bc better achievcd hy two-story
housing with traditional detailing, perhaps including large, usable porches and other
architectural featurcs. In addition, the City has had signiJicant amounts of input from the
school district encouraging the City to maximize its emphasis on housing that supports
Hunilyoccupancy. While senior housing does not discourage family housing construction,
location is an issue raised by this project. Give the proximity to the school, tamily
housing should he an attractive option to buycrs on this site. Planning staff would
encourage a project that focllses on that market for this property, rather than a rambler,
two-hedroom housing style that is most often occupied by the senior market.
.
With t~lmily housing, rear yard recreational space will also be important. The R-2^
District requires at least 20 teet of usable rear yard across the entire lot, and allows
shallower front yards to accommodate this requirement. The proposed project relies on a
site design that sets the houses and the driveways close to the rear property line, Icaving a
large front yard hut little rear yard space. A plan that brings the hOllses closer to the front,
and preserves rear yard open space, would better meet the intent of the di strict, and would
more closely support the family housing direction suited for this site.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
I.
Motion to recommend approval ol"the rezoning to R-2A, based on a finding that
the proposed zoning meets the conditions of the zoning ordinance ll.)r rezoning
approval, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility
with the neighborhood.
2.
Motion to recommend denial ol"the rezoning, based on a finding that the proposed
project is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for Broadway,
and a finding that housing near the school should be designed to accommodate
growing bmilies.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - I % I /02
.
STAff RECOMMENDATION
Stafr recommends a rezoning to R-2A only if the proposed project meets the goals
outlined above, and as written in the Comprehensive Plan. As noted, these goals include
the provision of family housing near the school, and housing that rellects the traditional
role of Broadway as more of a "grand entrance" roadway into the community. The two-
bedroom rambler units do not accomplish these objectives. Instead, to utilize the R-2A
District in this location, the following elements should be present:
a. Two story homes, with traditional detailing
b. rront porches that are large enough to accommodate family use.
c. Front setbacks closer to the street. preserving usable rear-yard open space.
d. Adequate setback from the entrance street (Otter Creek Road)
e. Compliance with other R~2A design elements, including substantial landscaping
and architectural details.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
1.
?
Site Plan
Building Plans
.
3
.
.
.
Planning COIllIll ission Agenda - 1 % 1/02
7.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Si!!n regulations
of the Zonin!! Ordinance. Applicant: Dennv Hecker Dodl!e. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Denny Hecker is seeking an amendment to the City's sign regulations to allow for
additional pylon signage on his property along Chelsea Boulevard. The applicant expects
to add another dealership to his existing building and property, and wants to be able to
add separate pylon signage identifying this addition business.
Currently, the City regulates pylon signs by allowing specific signage per parcel. In the
case of the Dodge property, the applicant is able to have two pylon signs by virtue of its
separate exposure to two arterial/collector roadways. Under the existing ordinance, an
additional tenant on the property is required to share the allowable pylon signage with
other occupants of the building.
Some communities have increased pylon sign allowance to large-parcel developments,
including shopping centers and similar land uses. The increase is most often related to
the ability to have freestanding sign exposure to all collector/arterial exposures, similar to
the allowances made for the Dodge property. It is common 1()J' this type of provision to
establish minimum lot area and ti-ontage thresholds, occasionally combining this with
separate buildi ng and sign setbacks or design requirements. Planning staff is aware of
ordinances that permit additional pylon sign allowance at lot size thresholds of 10 to 20
acres, and integrate frontage requirements as well. A change to Monticello's ordinance to
accomnlOdate the Dodge request would be below these other thrcshold lot sizes. In
addition, these allowances have been specifically made for shopping center identification
rather than individual business identification.
Planning staff would not recommend an amendment that permits individual businesses
within a multiple tenant commercial building to have individual pylon signs. There is
little ability to regulate the number of individual businesses within a building, and this
would appear to open the door to a proliferation of signs along major roads. Staff would
continue to encourage the City to rely on attractive architecture to promote business
identification, and make allowances for wall signage in lieu of additional freestanding
signs. If the City believes that additional freestanding signs would be an appropriate
allowance, planning staff would recommend that such signs then be required to be of a
monument-style design, having lower visual impacts and including some architectural
requirements as well.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/01/02
.
AL TERNA liVE ACTIONS
Decision I:
I. Motion to recommend amendment to the Sign regulations to provide for additional
freestanding signs on larger, multiple tentant commercial properties. This
recommendation should include specific conditions that the City should
incorporate into such an amendment.
) Motion to recommend denial of a Sign regulation amendment, based on a finding
that the existing ordinance permits adequate business identification.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff docs not recommend the amendment. Proliferation of signs merely decreases the
effectiveness of the existing sign communication, resulting in more signage requests by
neighboring properties. The advantage of freeway and/or arterial street business location
is, in part, increased visibility of the business to passing tra/Tic. With 200 square feet of
sign area allowed on individual freestanding signs, there would appear to be ample
opportunity to identify the occupants of a commercial property. Additional walLsignage
would be less intrusive, and would allow attractive architectural design to serve as its own
advertising. As noted above, if the City believes that additional freestanding signage is
appropriate, planning staff would recommend that monument signs be required.
SUPPORTING OAT A
None
.
2
.
.
.
8.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Randy Ruff (611 Elm Street) is requesting a conditional use permit in order to exceed
the allowable 1,200 sq. feet in accessory structure as well as a variance to surpass the
maximum allowable square footage of 1,500. This would allow the applicant to move an
existing pole barn of930 square feet onto the rear of his property, totaling the accessory
structures on the lot at 1,602 sq. ft. The property is located in-between the old Ruff Auto
Parts Inc., south of the intersection of West 6th Street and Elm.
Zoning:
. The parcel is zoned PZM which is a transitional/performance zone allowing
residential and commercial uses. The parcel is used for single family
purposes and falls under the standards of the R-l zone.
Zoning Ordinance:
. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height. The
applicant is aware of this and would have to bring the height of the
existing pole barn down.
.
The combination of attached garage and detached accessory building shall
not exceed 1,200 square feet without a conditional use permit.
. The size limitations for detached and attached accessory structures may be
increased up to a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet with a
conditional use permit that meets the following conditions:
L) Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the
storage of residential personal property of the occupant of
the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to
be utilized for commercial purposes. Is the applicant
simply operating the previous nonconforming business
on a lesser scale?
2.) The parcel on which the accessory structure is to be located
is of sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the
open space on the lot. Proposal Complies
3.)
The accessory building will not be so large as have an
adverse effect on the architectural character or reasonable
residential use of the surrounding property. Proposal does
not appear to comply
.
Land Use:
The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the
principal building in architectural style and building materials.
Proposal does not appear to comply
Staff has concerns about the reasoning behind the need for this pole barn
on a residential property. The use that once surrounded this parcel (Ruff
Auto Parts Inc.) no longer exists and therefore its use is no longer grand-
fathered in. The pre-existing nonconforming use cannot be brought onto
another parcel to create a new nonconformity. This is a residential lot and
should be used as such.
4.)
Access:
Staff is concerned with how the back of this parcel will be accessed, being
as there doesn't appear to be enough room to access the back of this lot
without driving onto the neighboring parcel. Cross Easements would have
to be obtained.
.
The applicant states that he will move items currently stored outside into the shed which
will clean up the area. Since some of the items stored outside are not stored lawfully (old
motors, junk cars) the applicant should not use this correction of the outside storage
problem as a premise for building a nonconforming structure. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a variance to go over the maximum allowable square footage for accessory
structures. The hardship that the applicant would like to use is that because this is an
existing pole barn, it makes more sense to move it onto this lot rather than destroy the
whole barn or move it elsewhere. This is not a hardship and it does not give the applicant
the right to disregard the code.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision A: CUP
1. Motion to approve the CUP, based on a finding that the four conditions
required for the granting of a CUP have been met.
2. Motion to deny the CUP based on the finding that the applicants request
does not meet the conditions for granting a CUP.
Decision B: VARIANCE
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on the finding that without the
granting of the variance the applicant will not have reasonable use of
his/her property.
2. Motion to deny the variance request, based on the finding that the
requirement for hardship is not met.
.
2-
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends alternative 2 in both decision A and B. The applicant does not meet the
required conditions for the granting of a conditional use permit and does not have a
hardship needed to grant a variance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Applicants Site Plan
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Aerial Photo
.
.
3
.
~
~t
~,
..J
~
1 u
. (;"""
C-
"'--
~
~
~ l..
J'tro € '-'J W
r:::- '" 0 a. W l..i
I:>....... ~x \Je:,
'-'v ~ ).,.
~ r--... -____________ ~......... v..:, ~
~ ~ ~x x "-<J ~
~tS """\ ~~ I -~
"- <; ( -----.--
,- ~ --
Lfl
~~
~-...J
~A.
\ \ .
~ "-
~ ~
~
o
<\g .'-
--J) . -
'w
~ ~ ~ ~
.1- t ~ l-t
~ f,'-, S'\ ~
~;:;~N
. ,I ,I, t
"'- " 1-- !
~~<h~
"~ft
I" 1\
,......,"\
~
... "
I' r
'-.}\'
-J.
al
~
l'>
CXl
I)
~
~
J
---r
-- ....-'-'- ...-.-.........
'"
"'":3"'------":
.~ .
~ ~~ "'" --.
ep... ~ ----. ~
r{) ~ rC: tJ
~ 0 ~
~ ~'~ , h-,
~
~~.~ J\ v\
1 ) ,
, "'-
~ --.t.
w' W
. I W "
W Vv 10
G ~
0 G-, Q; (\ k ~
\73 x ?\ x \..N l,
~ ~ N lAJ 0\1 L1 ~
ex') \;v ----..........
\ J 9JA
G\ ,.-
. ~ t;<.,
\'0.
-...
~~
~
.!.
1
C-.....
......
~.
---------
/fe--ee.. 0"7..c:.
1:;,50 f b7J.. ";. JOd ~
IJ 1'0 J. G> r;;);; l 31 d,
'1.+" '7;)::: )bO~
'(;(/0 + ,~ r/:l::; J 5 I 'J.
.
3 Dyll5
3D)'3~
3D..3/
30";;;'8
30'
3J'
93D SP"r"
.....
8
(Y)
I '.'--'--...'-."..-"___
'JB'
;)!1' b'7~ S~'il.
I~?b ~it. 36'
?la'
, ''_,____,.._ "" I
"----~~---"""-"---""-,--"''--t------'''-,,----,-,,--------~,,----'"---~O-i-'--''~---'''''-'''''
.
/;//1 STREE"r
..
8
0)
~b
.
.
.
9.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This item is an extension from last months Planning Commission meeting and is meant to
provoke discussion on the topic of how our ordinance should regulate temporary signs.
The current ordinance governing temporary signs allows each business a 40 day permit
(per calendar year) for two signs at a time. In addition; a special attention getting sign
permit is allotted for a period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between
consecutive issuance. Staff has had some discussions regarding possible changes and
would like some input from the Planning Commission prior to calling for a public hearing
and drafting a new ordinance.
Thoughts for discussion:
· Is a total of 40 days (plus 10 days for special sign permits) a bit excessive
for a temporary sign allowance?
.
How should our existing sign regulations or if changed a future temporary
sign ordinance deal with multi~tenant commercial developments?
· Are there ideas or suggestions on how to better regulate and enforce the
ordinance when dealing with temporary signs?
Again, the purpose of this discussion is for staff to get the Planning Commissions
thoughts, ideas, and direction prior to drafting an ordinance and calling for a public
hearing. There is no action requested.
.
.
.
l!h
Planning Commission Meeting - I % 1/02
Review building plans for consistency with Autumn Ridee POD requirements. (.TO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to review the building plan submitted by the primary
builder at the Autumn Ridge Townhome development and evaluate consistency of the
plans with the PUD standards. In brief. the minutes indicate that the developer proposed
finished square f(Jotage of the homes set at 1,700 sq. ft. The video tape of the meeting
does not clearly indicate that the 1,700 sq. n. space would be completely finished. On the
tape, the developer stated that there would be 1,700 sq. n. finishable.
The plans for the individual townhomes submitted to the Building Department show
approximately 900 sq. ft. finished with the remainder (800 sq. ft.) in the lower level
tlnishable. Is this consistent with the Planning Commission's expectations?
The minimum standard for R~ 1 development was set at 1,050 finished with finishable
area set at 2,000 sq. ft. The standards for R-2A were set at 1,200 sq. ft. finished and
1,200 sq. ft. tinishable. As you can see, the development proposes homes with less
tinished square footage than R-2A, but more finishable square f()otage. These standards,
although good for reference, do not apply to this area because it is in the PZM district
which allows higher density R-3 development.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to accept building plans as consistent with the approved PUD. Plans
showing 900 (approx.) sq. ft. finished with 800 sq. ft. finishable.
2. Motion denying acceptance of building plans. Motion includes requirement that
the homes contain tinishable square footage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StalT makes no recommendation on this matter as we arc seeking clarification on the PUD
req uirements.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of agenda item relating to original PUD approval.
Copy of meeting minutes.
View of video available on request.
Building permit plans available at meeting.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
8.
Public Hearin2: Consideration of a request to 2rant the development stage of a PUD.
Applicant: Ocello. LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Ocello LLC has submitted an application lor PUD site plan revicw. The property is located
wcst of Oakwood Drive and south of School Boulevard and is zoncd PZM, Perfonllance
Zone-Mixed. The site consists of21.59 acres. Thc applicant is proposing to construct 167
unit townhomes with a density of 7.7 units per acre.
Land Use. The area that surrounds the proposed development consists of a mobile home
park to the south, commercial to the west, industrial to the north and single-fiullily to the
east. The mid-density residential land use would be compatible with the surrounding
pattern .
Zoning. The purpose of the PZ-Mixed Zoning District is to provide a land use transition
between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as
the intermixing of each land use. The density requirements for this zoning district are
5,000 square feet per unit. Setback requirements for this district call tl1r nexibility,
however, City Code suggests 20 feet in the side yard and 30 feet in rear yards. Staff has
concerns regarding the sctbacks of this development. All buildings, decks, and porches
must meet the minimum 30-foot setbacks. The setback areas of particular concern are
those along both street trontages around the perimeter of the site.
Access/Circulation. The current access and tran-ic circulation plan should be modified
to renect more intuitive circulation throughout the project. Staff recommends a more
continuous looped roadway with spur streets to perimeter access points along with
spacing the intersections to avoid coni1icts with driveways. Staff recommends a
minimum of three access points, as shown on the site plan, as the minimum rcquired fiJr
this project. Staff has additional concerns regarding several oddly angled intersections,
combincd with sevcral driveways backing out into thc middle of the intcrsections.
Trails. The current plan shows a series of internal trails that connect School Boulevard
near the driveway access to Edmondson near thc northern driveway access and to thc
south along the utility easement. Staffrecommcnds that a trail system hc incorporated
into this plan that will link to existing trails on the northeast and southeast corners of the
project. Thc plan should hc designed so that individual units would bc within 200 feet of
a trail or sidewalk leading to a trail on school Blvd. or Edmundson (Co Rd 117). Staff
would recommend that a public trail along Edmondson be completed with the project.
Staff docs not recommcnd sidewalks along intcrnal streets due to the impact on
landscaping.
10 A
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
.
Off-Street Parking. Thc applicant is proposing 42 guest parking stalls. Because no off-
street parking will bc allowed on private drives, staff is recommending a ratio of one
parking space per three dwelling units or a total of SS parking stalls needed. Therefore.
an additional 13 parking stalls must be incorporated into the dcvelopment. Thc
additional 13 stalls should be incorporatcd in the northwcst corner, southwest corner,
middle, and northeast corner ofthc project.
Landscaping Plan. StaiT recommends berm placcment along Edmondson as well as to
construct a pathway along the planting area. The applicant should intensively landscape
areas with high exposurc to otTset the impact of high-density, low open space design.
These include areas around the play area, areas around guest parking, and areas behind
proposed townhomes. The applicant should provide additional landscaping around the
southerly portion of thc project. The area hctwecn the mohi Ie home park and powcr lincs
to the south should he heavily landscaped and huffer the project from the adjacent
properties.
.
Outdoor Recreation. The current plan shows two private small tot-lots and additional
"Hot-Shot" basketball court along the southerly utility easements. All play areas should
be located away from casement areas. Staff also recommends a larger, more substantial
tot-lot area in the centcr of the project with more visibility from the surrounding streets.
It is suggested that Klein Farms Park is closc enough to provide an adequate local public
park resource.
Lighting. A detailed private street lighting plan must be submitted to public works prior
to development.
Grading, Utilities and Drainage Plans. All grading plans are subject to review of the
City Engineer.
Design Guidelines. According to City Code, the PUD allows f(w higher standards of site
and huilding design standards. As such, statT tcelthat this proposed development should
provide the community a high standard of building design. These include hrick elements
on the front of buildings, texture-look roofing materials, and steeper roof pitches (6/12 to
8/12 or more).
Phasing. According to City Code, no such stage, when averaged with all previously
completed stages, may have a residential density that exceeds 2S% of the proposed
residential dcnsity of the entire PUD. Moreover, staff recommends that no more than 50
units should be built beforc a sccond access is providcd within thc projcct.
Easements. Staff recommends that thc applicant provide documentation from the gas
company regarding thc gas line casemcnts and the construction of this project.
.
2
/0 -A
Planning COlllll1 ission ^genda - 07/02/02
.
Development Agreement. The development agreement must include information for the
maintenance of all open spaces facilities.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUO with staff
recommendati ons.
2. Motion to recommend denial of this development based on inconsistent street
patterns and problems with traffic circulation as well as the higher density that is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to recommend tabling based on a lack of information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because of the several issues raised regarding the layout of the project, development stage
PUD approval may be premature at this time. If the Planning Commission believes that
development stage approval is appropriate, stafTwould recommend that the following items
are addressed as a condition of approval:
.
I. A detailed landscaping plan must be subtniHed that includcs huffer areas, herms, and
more intensive landscaping in thc rear areas to mitigate site lines as well as the area between
the proposed development and the mobile homes to the south.
2. Modifications regarding circulation must be addressed. These modifications must
include alternatives to the current plan that decrease the number ofcontlict intersection areas.
J n addition, the applicant must pursue permission for the second access to Edmondson
Avenue frotn the County. A minimum of three access points are necessary for this project.
3. A detailed lighting plan must be submitted to public works and is suhject to City staff
approval.
4. The applicant must resolve easement issues and receive pennission from the gas
company for the second access to Edmondson with the County. The grading, drainage, and
utility plan must be approved by the City Engineer.
5. A modified parking plan must be developed that includes additional guest parking
areas. At least 13 additional parking stalls are necessary throughout the development.
.
6. The applicant must provide a revised trail plan that includes internal trails that
connect to School Boulevard as well as to the southeast corner of the site at Edmondson and
.,
.J
I () A
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
the UPA casement that runs to Klein Farms. The plan should be designed so that individual
units would be within 200 feet of the trail. The internal trail system should provide a link
between the current tails on the northeast and southeast corner of the project.
7. The applicant must redesign recreation areas away fronl easement areas. Staff
recommends larger recreation areas in the center of the proposed development.
8. Higher design standards that include building elevations consistent with this report,
must be devcloped and submitted.
9. A phasing plan must be developed and submitted to staff prior to development. No
more than 50 units shall be constructed before a second access is developed within the
project.
10. All buildings, porches, and decks, must be setback a minimum of 30 feet.
11. Further recommendations by City staff.
SUPPORTING DATA
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Site Location Map
Boundary Survey Map
Site Plan Map
Preliminary Plat Map
Grading Plan Map
Preliminary Utility Map
Landscaping Plan Map
Parks Commission Minutes
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
8.
Publ ic [learing - Consideration of a re<.lllCst fiJr concept and development stage planned
unit development allowing townhome development in the PZM zoninQ district.
Applicant: Ocello. LL,C. Shawn Weinand
Steve Grittman provided the report adding that the developer is asking for two accesses
onto Co Rd 17 and that he needs to get proper authorization from the County to do this.
He added that since the time he wrote the report the applicant has already addressed some
of the concerns and has provided a revised site plan.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand, applicant, stated that they
reviewed the comments from stafT and tried to address most of the concerns. Weinand
stated he was also concerned at first with the design by MFRA, but it was stated that this
was due to safety issues. and although they 111ay look choppy. they have taken out the
linear look. The circular design is to act as trai1ic control as well as a landmark, noting
that part of what is critical to the road layout is that it is basically a nat site.
Weinand advised that in speaking with stall it was advised that walkouts were preferred,
so they sculptured the land to fit this request. He stated that they have not come up with a
real solution to the circulation problcm and arc open to suggestions. Weinand advised
that they also added trails through the project by recommendation of staff to have them
within 200 ft of each unit. Along Co Ro 17 they have added 2 to 3 foot berms enabling
them to meander the trail system through this with a nice look. Staff also suggested one
large tot lot versus the 2 that were proposed. The appl icant stated they arc struggling
with that because they feel that due to the size of this parcel they would like to create
neighborhoods within neighborhoods. Weinand stated that they added 2 more tot lots, 4
in totaL along with the hot shot basketball court, and this puts each neighborhood within
500 f1. The bui IdeI' felt that it was critical to have the ability to have smaller
neighborhoods. 'They designed landscaping to create these neighborhoods as well. He
also addressed the issue that they need to have all porches and decks within the 30 ft.
setback. but advised that they do not have porches, only balconies, and they arc all within
the 30 ft. setback with the exception of the 3 units in the three corners of the project.
Weinand also addressed the gas line and access issues, and advised that they have made
application to the County regarding county access. Weinand also supports 2 entrances
into the development, but they cannot guarantee that the county would give this to them.
The county wants passing/turning lanes as well and Weinand stated they will include this.
He added that they have narrowed the streets to 24 ft., but did not shorten driveways;
there arc currently 270 parking spaces, and they are still maintaining 50(YtI green space.
Weinand stated they do not have a lot of brick on the units as they do not have large
fronts. and his recOll1mendation would be to carry the brick up further into a design. He
also stated they are maintenance free outsides with upgraded shingles and treads on the
decks. Starting price range is mid $130,OOO'~ Pror"~o \ ( oMP'i4"
Frie asked Weinand to respond to the C0J11111ents regarding staff and Planning
Commission concerns with the 11 conditions not being resolved, which he addressed. It
-8-
lD 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
.
was notcd that therc is a concern with phasing, as well as outdoor recrcation and hie
asked if the Parks Commission had discussed this itcm. Weinand stated there is a
phasing schedule which he provided to them, but he would rather not be held to 50 units
per phase, adding that they arc projccting 3 phases now, and could possibly end up with
4. Grittman stated this as a guideline that thcy go by, not to have 100 units all at once,
and this has been addressed. Frie asked about the Parks Commission concerns, there was
confusion as to whether they were private or public parks, and it was stated that they will
be private. The Parks Commission has not seen thc updated site plan addressing the
concerns. It was advised that the Parks Commission would rather have the dollars f()r
park dedication for development of the Klein farms park which is about Y2 mile away.
Frie asked if staff would require them to put in tot lots and the hot shot as well as park
dedication. O'Neill said they will have to discuss this further with the Parks Commission
as to what percentage is being accomplished with these 4 tot lots. Weinand advised that
they had previously discussed the private parks and they also have land that they would
like to leave as green space, as well as land on the Remmcle piece that they could
dedicate in lieu of cash. O'Neill stated they will bring the request to the Parks
Commission showing land, grade, and more details so they can make an informed
decision. O'Neill asked about this being a private project with private tot lots, and would
they get credit fcw this and Grittman stated some cities will credit a certain percentage,
some will not, stating that isjust one of the costs ofa PUD. Weinand also added that
they ran the trail system through their site so that the public has access through and he
would like to negotiate the park dedication as he felt that was the direction they were
heading, and he was not aware of the Parks Commission's concern.
.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Smith asked if Grittman felt the issues were
addressed properly and Grittman stated the biggest concern was the circulation in the
central area and that although he liked the idea of a landmark and tratTic control, he had
concerns with 3 intersections right in that area with driveways accessing into that space,
and does not feci that this would be the right design, although he does understand the
strategy f<Jr slowing tramc. In regard to the way the streets take "sharp" turns versus
curves, drivers tend to cut otfturns and he is not sure they would be solving the tramc
concern. They did likc thc way the streets are laid out as it makes for a constantly
changing view. He feels thcre is a way to work the circulation out, while preserving unit
counts. Weinand stated there is quite a bit of green space behind the units and possibly
they could move them back, stating they are open to suggestions as they have no solution
at this time.
.
Weinand stated total finished square feet would be 1,700. 'T'hesc arc split entry, look-outs t' j
and walk-outs, one bcdroom on the main floor with the ability to add 2 more. Grittman rf\t.t I ^
stated also that there needs to be trail connections on the northeast corncr of the roadway +6.e~ {l
to thc northeast corner of thc site to get the internal traffic out, but that this can be (\ 0 \:' (Jut.
changed easily. Lloyd Hilgart asked about the central area and could they creatc a cul-de- "\ J-
sac to eliminate those problems. Wcinand stated cul-de-sacs are usually not preferred, (tJ lL~1)
but in that area it may be feasible, but not the best for fire trucks and snow plowing. b<- fa.
Weinand stated he would like to be grading in the next 2 to 3 wceks. Frie stated that fv-J t> 00.. 0)
-9-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
.
Weinand has done an excellent job in resolving the Im~jority of the issues and asked if
staff felt comfortable with moving f()rward and working with the appl icant. Grittman
stated he is confident that they can work out the concerns and feels they have covered
most of them already.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
I. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted that includes buffer areas, berms,
and more intensive landscaping in the rear areas to mitigate site lines as well as
the area between the proposed development and the mobile homes to the south.
2. Modifications regarding circulation must be addressed. These modifications must
include alternatives to the current plan that decrease the number of contlict
intersection areas. In addition, the applicant must pursue permission for the
second access to Edmondson Avenue from the County. A minimum ofthree
access points are necessary for this project.
3. A detailed lighting plan must be submitted to public works and is subject to City
staff approval.
.
4.
The applicant must resolve easement issues and receive permission from the gas
company for the second access to Edmondson with the County. The grading,
drainage, and utility plan must be approved by the City Engineer.
5. A modified parking plan must be developed that includes additional guest parking
areas. At least 13 additional parking stalls are necessary throughout the
development.
6. The applicant must provide a revised trail plan that includes internal trails that
connect to School Boulevard as well as to the southeast corner of the site at
Edmondson and the UP A casement that runs to Klein Farms. The plan should be
designed so that individual units would be within 200 feet of the trail. The
internal trail system should provide a link between the current tails on the
northeast and southeast corners of the project.
7. The applicant must redesign recreation areas away from easement areas. Staff
recommends larger recreation areas in the center of the proposed development.
8. Higher design standards that include building elevations consistent with this
report, must he developed and submitted.
.
9.
A phasing plan must he developed and submitted to staff prior to development.
No more than 50 units shall be constructed before a second access is developed
-10-
100
.
9.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
within the project.
10.
All buildings, porches, and decks, must be setback a minimum of 30 feet.
II. Further recommendations by City staff.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ROBBIE SMITH RECJARDING TilE
PARKS COMMISSION'S NEED TO REVIEW FURTHER. ROD DRAGSTFN
AMENDED HIS MOTION ADDING THAT THIS ALSO BE SUBJECT TO PARKS
COMMISSION APPROVAL. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE AMENDED
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Steve "ittman provided the report and JcffO'Neill added information re
street co ection to the Groveland residential development.
O'Neill advi. ~d that Developers of the adjacent Grovelam. Addition have suggestcd
modifying the 'oveland plat and Prairie Ponds to allow a r 'd connection from Groveland
to Prairie Ponds. This connection would provide a thO . access point to the Groveland
residential subdivis' n, O'Neill recalled that a requ t for this access was denied by the
Planning Commission hen thc preliminary plat W'. established. At'tertakinga second look
at the proposal, it has ga ed support at stafflev because most believe that the new access
wi II not bccome a primary ute ll)r access t 1e development. This proposal would result
in a reduction in park land wit the Grove nd Addition which would be offset by developer
paying cash in lieu of lan(l.
Chair Frie opened the public he,- ng. rad Larson, applicant, asked about the storm sewer
in the area of the School Blv and High ay 25 intersection and if the City was proposing
to shift any of the utilities. 'rittman advisc hat they would not be. Larson advised that
thcy are looking at prote sional buildings on th " site.
Frie asked who wo d provide the additional road acc ss and O'Neill stated the applicant
would pay for thO and that they may have to revise their ans as well. He also noted that
they will lose major portion of park space if this happens a d it also has not gone before
the Parks C mission. Grittman advised that they did not antic ate that park space at that
site havin much activity, but wanted to have a trail connection, as 19 as there is a plan for
making' up in park dedication. Frie asked Larson about the extension rSchool Blvd. and
wou\c 't they be bettcr circumventing that by extending it to the west. an .fthis would be
a p Itive for the Grovcland dcvelopment, it could be done without affecting t applicant's
velopment.
-11-
.
.
.
12.
Staff requests that the November meeting be moved from election day, 11/5/02 to the
following Thursday, 11/07/02. If this alternative date is acceptable, please pass a motion
accordingly and staff will process the appropriate notices.