Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-01-2008Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION • Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the Commission. Consideration to approve the minutes of March 4th 2008 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 4"', 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of adding items to the a eg_nda Chairman Dragsten requested an update on the Comprehensive Plan. • 4. Citizen comments. NONE. Public Hearing -Consideration of a reauest of a reauest for Preliminary and Final Plat for the AMAX Addition, a commercial plat in a B-3 ~Highway Business) District Applicant• AMAX Self-Storaee Planner Steve Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a preliminary and final to divide s single lot into two lots. The current single lot is divided by Cedar Street. Grittman reported that the subdivision is consistent with code requirements and that it meets zoning requirements for the B-3 district. Although the proposed property line does divide the buildings, it is an existing conditions and that division can be accommodated by the existing approved PUD in place over these properties. Grittman explained that there is an issue related to an objection over a small portion of the plat in the southwest corner. The neighboring property owner believes that the proposed plat reflects land that belongs to him. Grittman stated that issue would need to be worked out between property owners, as the County will not record the plat if ownership of property within the plat is in question. • Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the plat as proposed, subject to conditions as noted and the resolution of the southwest lot line issue. • Dragsten asked if the plat would need to be replatted to accommodate changes to the southwest lot line. Grittman stated it would just need to be redrawn prior to Council to exclude this piece. Grittman noted that the County will complete a surveyors review of the plat. Dragsten asked if the Commission should still move forward in approving the plat if this issue is unresolved. Grittman responded that it is not City's responsibility to determine ownership of platted property, that is the property owners' responsibility and will be addressed at recording. Hilgart asked if it is allowable to have the setback of the east line set at zero. Grittman explained that setback is viewed as an existing condition by the PUD in place. Voight asked if Grittman is assured that the subject piece of land .can be included in the plat. Grittman stated that verification of ownership has to be completed before it can be recorded. Grittman stated that the City is not the arbiter of those items; it is the County or the courts. Dragsten asked about the ROW requested for site corners. Grittman explained that Dundas Road has been platted as ROW and add the City Engineer has requested clips at the lot corners for preservation of site lines. Dragsten asked if Dundas is currently easement. Grittman stated that is how it appears. • Dragsten asked if old Highway 25 has been vacated. Grittman stated that it has been vacated. Grittman stated that the history of old plats is always carried forward on the new plat. The dashed line means that it has been vacated and the document number also appears on the plat. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, 2330 Eastwood Circle, addressed the Commission as applicant. Dragsten asked if the disputed area will be a problem. Posusta stated that the area will be showsn as needed bylaw. Posusta commented that his abstract of ownership includes this parcel. He reported that this became a problem because of action by the previous administrator. It is going through quiet title action and he stated that he realizes that the plat can't be recorded until it is resolved. He noted that he does have someone to purchase the property and will therefore revise the plat to leave this notch out. Dragsten sought confirmation that the plat would exclude this portion. Posusta responded that if it is determined that it is his property, the City will pay for the property, or City will have to pay for value of the property to the person who believes it is their property. In the meantime, Posusta stated that he can't sell the lot with that notch included. LJ 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 Dragsten asked if the applicant had reviewed Exhibit Z. Posusta replied that he had and that he had given to the Commission a handout related to one of the conditions. He stated that he has issues with everything on exhibit Z. He explained that the documents given to • the Commission noted that the previous Building Official okayed the location of the wall. If there is anything that needs to be fixed within the easement, it shouldn't be his responsibility. Posusta indicated that it baffles him that the City would need to be on the inside of the wall to do anything. He noted that the area behind the wall is not currently hard surfaced. If the City wants to open cut and put pipe in ground for fiber, they should do it now. Then there shouldn't be any issues. Dragsten asked if there are utilities on the inside of the wall. Posusta stated that there is a gas line which parallels that wall on the outside. Dragsten asked if Posusta does not agree with the recommendations of the City Engineer, either. Posusta explained that he had been asked to remove three trees by the Engineer. However, as the City had previously told him to plant the trees, it seems odd that they want to take those out. He noted that the likely can't be moved due to the size, so they would have to be cut down. Dragsten asked about conveying Dundas as ROW. Posusta stated that he is willing to do that if the other items on Exhibit Z go away. Voight stated that one of the conditions requires recording within 100 days. Posusta stated that it has already been discussed that he would leave the notch out, so recording would not be an issue. • Hilgart clarified that Posusta is not necessarily opposed to the site corners. Posusta stated that he is willing to do that if other items go away. Hilgart asked about condition related to the wall and the easement. Posusta commented that the only other utilities that could be placed there is fiber. Everything is already in. Hilgart asked about 20' to allow for sight distance. Posusta stated that he doesn't understand how there could be any issue with sight lines. Dragsten noted that the intersection is difficult in terms of sight lines. Schumann noted that the summary of the City Engineer's comments appear in Exhibit Z; there are no other additional conditions. Dragsten stated that he doesn't want to make decision on the easement when we don't know what is there. Voight asked Posusta when he is planning on surfacing. Posusts stated this summer. Gabler asked what the ramifications of waiting 30 days until things are resolved with this other property owner. Posusta responded that he understands it is up to him to get the plat corrected before getting it to Mayor for signature. • 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 Posusta noted that quiet title action could take 6 months to one year. That is why he will leave it off the plat. Dragsten noted that if the item were delayed, these items could be cleared up. • Posusta noted that he can't sell the property with the quiet title issue unaddressed. Dragsten stated that the other thing is that there are four other conditions on the report which he may not agree with. He commented that if this were continued for another 30 days, perhaps the conditions could be resolved and the City could move it through very quickly. Hilgart stated that his feeling is that he would make a motion to approve and let the Council make those determinations. By the time it gets to Council, they'll have resolved it. Voight agreed. Gabler stated that she would prefer to wait 30 days. Spartz stated that he is fine moving forward. Posusta stated that he would prefer to leave it to the Council. Staff has their position and they are not in position to negotiate like Council. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated he is more concerned about Exhibit Z than the disputed property, as it isn't for the City to decide who owns what. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, SUBJECT TO A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer related to grading, drainage, and utilities. 2. The applicant shall verify if the Dundas Road easement is proposed to be vacated and re-established as right-of--way. Any disruption of the portion of the existing concrete wall on Lot 1, Block 2 that lies within the City right-of--way or drainage and utility easement shall be at the expense of the property owner. The property owner shall also be responsible to remove or relocate any portion of the wall within these areas to install or maintain utilities, including our fiber optic lines. 4. The property lines in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 and the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be pulled back 20-feet to allow for sight distance at each of the property corners at the intersection of Cedar Street and Dundas Road. • 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-1 with Commissioner Dragsten in dissent. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for Rezoning from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-4 (Mobile Home Parkl for the property known as Kjellberg's West Mobile Park Applicant Kjellbers's Inc./Kjellberg Mobile Home Park City Planner Grittman presented the staff report. He explained that the subject property lies west of Highway 25, and is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural-Open Space. He noted that the site is currently used for mobile homes. Grittman indicated that the applicant has cited the conflict between the existing use and the zoning district as the rationale for the rezoning request. When evaluating rezoning, Grittman stated that his primary concern is the land use designation in comp plan. Grittman stated that the existing comp plan labels the property as mobile home park and the proposed comp plan has this are under consideration as a place to live as well. He noted that there is a likelihood. that there are existing non-conformities. The non- conformities transfer as existing conditions. Grittman explained that the rezoning may actually make the site more conforming, although some technical standards maybe out of compliance. As a result of these factors, staff is recommending approval. Gabler confirmed that this request just changes the designation. Grittman confirmed that • and stated that future uses on the site will be evaluated against the R-4 district. Spartz asked if there was any reason it wasn't done previously. Grittman stated that it hadn't been requested. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Kirk Kjellberg 9127 State Highway 25, Monticello made himself available for questions Spartz asked why the rezoning hadn't been completed earlier. Kjellberg stated that he had inquired about that to the City Administrator, who noted that when property is annexed, rezoned is normally an automated process. Kjellberg explained that the East side was automatically rezoned when it was annexed, but for some reason this side was not. Gabler asked if there was something specific that prompted this request. Kjellberg stated that it is part of an on-going concern about getting it compliant with uses of current property. Dragsten asked if he has any plans for the site. Kjellberg replied that he is not proposing any changes as far as what is going to happen, but it is certainly not agricultural. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A-O TO R-4, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SUBJECT REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for a commercial development in a B-4 (R~e Tonal Business district Applicant: SB 22, LLC/Mike Krutzi~ City Planner Grittman presented the staff report. Grittman referred to site plan for the Jerry Hartung Addition, which is currently undeveloped property and zoned B-4. He stated that the proposed development of the property is in two lots. The development consists of approximately 11,000 commercial at present, with about half as restaurant at far south. The site itself includes a significant amount of parking, more than required by code. Grittman indicated that the City require 135 spaces; the site plan shows 170 parking stalls and additiona141 future stalls under the powerline. There is also additional parking that would serve second lot to the north. Grittman explained that the applicants have proposed signage larger than allowed, which can be considered under the PUD. In terms of access, a common access is shared and in place with existing retail to the north. There is also cross access shown for both parcels and crossing onto the existing parcel to the north. Grittman stated that there is a • requirement to provide easement agreements and the City is asking the applicant to provide that documentation. The landscaping on the site is shown to consist of trees and shrubs and is consistent with the existing development to the north. The code has specific requirement for number of trees and allows the City to approve shrub plantings in lieu of trees. Grittman stated that he believes the plan is attractive and acceptable in terms of the intent of the ordinance. Grittman stated that a lighting plan has been submitted, but needs some adjustment to meet ordinance standards. Grittman reported that the applicant had submitted color renderings of the building. It is similar in architectural style to the buildings that are in the commercial area. Grittman noted that there are also a number of engineering recommendations which have been talked through with the applicant. Grittman reported that staff is recommending approval and briefly reviewed the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Voight asked about the landscaping which is now in the proof of parking area. Grittman indicated that they show where it would be replaced, but at that time moving the landscaping would require an amendment to PUD. Hilgart inquired whether this area was included in the original commercial development and PUD. Grittman stated that the plat was redrawn, and this southern area was not included in the original PUD and plat. The northern portion was conceptually shown, but there are changes from that concept. Grittman stated that a portion was approved by • PUD, but is being amended with this. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 Spartz noted that the City Engineer's comments are included in the staff report. Letter was not in the packet. • Gabler whether the southern area needs to be bermed based on new ordinance for screening. Grittman stated that if this is developed, they would have to meet parking lot screening requirements. Dragsten asked what would be done initially. Grittman referred to limits of parking, noting that no parking directly faces the residential property. Voight stated that only applied if it is on the line and they would need to do it only if directly facing the area. Dragsten noted that City should look at screening on that south side, even the way it proposed now. Dragsten referred to site plan, noting that the area is not going to be hard-surfaced. Grittman pointed it out as the temporary access area across the vacant lot to the existing development. He noted that the engineers are saying 24' recycled bituminous is appropriate until this lot develops. Dragsten asked if there is an alternative to permanent barricades. Grittman stated that barricades are ugly, so the City is looking for an alternative. Dragsten asked if there is a cul-de-sac, why do anything. Grittman responded that Public Works believes some visual notification is needed as it is a temporary road way. Voight suggested planting some trees. Dragsten what indicated it as temporary. Grittman stated that it is smaller than the City standard and is not curbed. • Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Mike Krutzig, 18897 180th Avenue, Big Lake, addressed the Commission as applicant. Dragsten asked Krutzig to review the revised sign plans that he distributed to the Commission at the meeting. Kruztig stated that in regard to the building itself, staff has asked for less signage. They had taken a look to see how to make staff happy and still get results. He noted that they went back to architect for consistency within the PUD. They reduced building signage by 58 square feet. Krutzig noted that on the other two buildings, they used 10% of silhouette. After we put signage on that building, the City also requested that they put signage on rear because back of the building, as it would look more attractive if they are broken up. Cedar Street is heavily traveled. Krutzig stated that to be consistent and attempt to make the building's Cedar Street side look attractive, we reduced the signage on the front and side down to 298 from 311 square feet. Signage was added to the back of building only in an attempt to comply and be consistent with previous approvals. Dragsten noted that the signage proposed was 608 square feet. Krutzig stated that what they now propose is 478 square feet. If you take the back off, which is the City wanted • 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 us to soften, then the front and side comes to 298. Only in dealing with the back, did they end up going over. • Krutzig stated that it is very consistent with other two buildings, which is important in a PUD. Hilgart confirmed that he did look at the buildings, and the signage does not look out of place and does break up the building. Krutzig stated that it does help, as the more appealing the building is, the happier the tenants. Dragsten stated that City has been flexible on other buildings. He questioned whether perhaps the City had calculated those based on a percentage. Dragsten stated that this building is about the same size as the others. Krutzig responded that it is a little smaller, but the sign size is in proportion. Dragsten asked if he recalls what he got on the other buildings. Krutzig stated that he does not, but it is very consistent. Dragsten clarified that the signage would be under ordinance requirements if nothing was on the back. Krutzig discussed the pylon. In order to maintain consistency within PUD, they are proposing a pylon that falls between the two existing signs in terms of the area. The height proposed at 26' is consistent with existing signs also. Krutzig stated that as the PUD allows latitude, he would ask for what has been previously approved to maintain consistency. Dragsten asked for the square footage comparison in the new plan. Krutzig responded that the area on the pylon is the same, but they've gone down 136 feet on the wall signage Krutzig stated that they place a great deal of focus on appearance, want them to look nice. Dragsten stated he understands what he is trying to do and trying to be consistent. Dragsten asked if they have problem around cul-de-sac. Krutzig stated that they do not; they try to get along with the request of the City. Dragsten asked if he is familiar with Exhibit Z. Krutzig stated that he is fine with items in Exhibit Z. Dragsten asked about building set back from powerlines. Kruztig stated that issue has been worked out with Xcel. Dragsten confirmed that they have proposed no signage on the corner or curb. Krutzig state nothing in addition to this. Dragsten asked if there is a reason why there is no reader board. Krutzig stated that he had asked Buffalo Wild. Wings if they would be willing to chip in but they are not interested right now due to cost. Voight thanked Krutzig for his explanation on the signage plan and how the new plan was arrived at. He noted his that he was frustrated initially when reading through packet as the signage greatly exceeded requirements. However, he stated that he think building 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 looks good and the plan proposed is an effort to make the PUD consistent, in efforts to make it consistent. Voight noted that the problem is not with the applicant's plans or design. He stated that it seems to clearly indicate that we need to revise the ordinance or abide by the one we have. Krutzig commented stated that appears that the City is giving, behind the scenes, there is a lot of giving on both sides. Voight agreed, but from the Commission's perspective, sometimes they just see what the City is giving up. . Dragsten addressed sign ordinance, noting the flexibility of the PUD, and also that if each of these buildings were on its own parcel, each would be allowed much more signage than what is being proposed as a PUD unit. Spartz asked if Krutzig understands the screening requirements to the south. Kruzig stated that if that is what is required, he will do what is required. Dragsten explained that when a commercial project abut a residential neighborhood, there is an ordinance requiring some sort of head wall or proper landscaping. Krutzig stated he understands and would be sensitive and would be agreeable to it as condition to this approval. Spartz stated that he wanted to clarify because he will be adding it to Exhibit Z. Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE • REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD AS PRESENTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B-4 DISTRICT AND PROVIDES A QUALITY PROJECT THAT JUSTIFIES THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS 1N EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. A shared access and maintenance agreement shall be provided by the property owners and recorded against all subject properties. 2. The applicant shall be required to revise the photometric plan showing readings all the way to the centerline of the adjacent public streets. Readings at the centerline shall not exceed 1 footcandle. 3. The temporary access to the Monticello Business Center Second Addition shall be constructed of recycled bit at a width of 24 feet. 4. The applicant shall reduce the height of the light fixtures within the power line easement to a height consistent with the policies of Xcel Energy. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to address proof of parking, parking in the storm sewer easement, construction of a patio within the storm sewer easement and general conditions of the Planned Unit Development. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/08 6. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer's, as detailed in the memo from WSB and Associates dated March 26, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Comprehensive Plan Update Schumann noted that the Commission would be holding its public hearing on Wednesday, Apri130`h 2008 in order to avoid conflict with the Board of Review meeting on Tuesday, Apri129`h Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10