Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-05-2014MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann, Grant Sala Absent: None Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller, Lloyd Hilgart 1. Call to order Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Citizen Comments None 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting — June 3rd, 2014 The minutes for this meeting were not yet available for consideration. b. Regular Meeting — July 1 st, 2014 SAM BURVEE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 1 IT 2014 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. (Charlotte Gabler did not vote as she had not attended the meeting.) 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for rezoning from B -4 (Resional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District, _Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition, Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Multi - Family Residential in an R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District, and Consideration of a request for variance to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H) for required minimum unit square feet in the R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties. Planning Case Number: 2014 — 030 City Planner Steve Grittman summarized that IRET Properties had requested approval to develop a three - story, high- density residential housing project at a parcel described as Outlot A, Monticello Commerce Center Seventh Addition. The 12.7 acre site would be replatted as Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition. The proposed development would involve the construction of a two - phase, 202 unit apartment building. The first phase would consist of 136 units in the first phase and an additional 66 units in the second phase. The request involved consideration of a series of actions including rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence), Preliminary /Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit (to allow multi - family housing in an R -4 District), and Variance (from minimum dwelling unit size requirement of the R -4 District). Grittman stated that the request meets criteria for zoning amendment approval, as per Section 2.4(B)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that it addresses needs arising from changing land use patterns; corrects an inconsistency between the City's Land Use Plan and zoning map; and is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The site meets the locational criteria of the R -4 District and the lot significantly exceeds with minimum 30,000 square foot base lot area requirement. The property also meets density, setback and green space requirements. The proposed multi - family housing development also meets the criteria required for approval of a conditional use permit in the R -4 District according to Section 2.4(D)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance in that it is not expected to diminish area property values; negatively impact the development potential of the neighboring vacant site; impact natural features; result in nuisance - related impacts or overburden public service capacity. The request meets criteria for approval of a variance from the minimum square foot unit requirement as per Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance in that unique circumstances exist which create practical difficulties for putting the property to a reasonable use should the requirement be strictly applied. Grittman stated that these circumstances relate to the current demand for one bedroom units of varying sizes and the rental cost that the market can bear for high amenity multi- family rental housing. Grittman provided a broad overview of the issues involved in rezoning, preliminary and final plat, conditional use permit and variance actions. He noted that staff had made recommendations related to access, striping, surface parking, landscaping and project phasing and said that these, along with numerous other conditions, were specified in the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit Z. Fyle said he'd like to see the buffer eliminated along the property line and asked if the city could provide overstory trees. Grittman indicated that the buffer yard planting requirement is designed to discourage cutting through the property. Gabler asked if it might be an option to install a paved path in that area. Grittman said it would be difficult to do so because of the topography. Sala asked if there would be signage related to parking. Grittman suggested that might be a consideration of the Parks Commission. 2 Heidemann asked if parking for the athletic fields would impact the overall parking available for the development. Grittman said that parking meets code requirements. Gabler asked why a detached garage structure was needed. Grittman noted that it is counted as covered parking. Gabler also asked if securing terms includes a bond. Grittman indicated that securing all terms of agreement includes improvements to be made and includes a separate surety for landscaping which includes two growing seasons. Lloyd Hilgart wondered if the square footage requirement may have been meant as an average rather a minimum standard when the ordinance was initially established. Grittman said that the code was written to have stiff requirements but noted that he may be right. Grittman pointed out that the applicant had objected to the requirement early in the process. Staff had been reluctant to amend the ordinance without having first applied it and so opted to process the request as a variance to allow for consideration on a case by case basis. Charlotte Gabler asked if it would be an option to reduce the number of 27 units less than 900 square feet in size. The applicant indicated that the unit mix is based on demographic demand and that the trend is to build a higher percentage of one bedrooms units within apartment communities. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Andy Martin, representing IRET Properties, 4150 2nd Street South, St. Cloud, explained that IRET had worked closely with city staff to meet and, in most cases, exceed ordinance requirements for the proposed development. He suggested that the request for variance addresses the intent of the ordinance, enables practical building design and provides more marketable one bedroom options. He pointed out that to increase the unit size would require adding another level to the building. Martin also indicated that IRET had been open to a land dedication option and had already designed a sidewalk to run along the drive lane to accommodate pedestrian traffic from the parking area adjacent to Freeway Fields Park to the sidewalk along Meadow Oak Avenue. He noted, however, that staff had recommended a cross - easement. Fyle said that downsizing was coming back and that the commission may need to redo the minimum unit standard to match up with what the rest of the world is doing. Sam Burvee expressed his concern about deviating from the unit size standard set for the R -4 without giving it a chance to hit the luxury apartment target market. Gabler suggested out that the standards for the district were based on the need to start somewhere two years ago before there was any indication of developer interest. 3 Alan Heidemann indicated that 900 square feet per unit seems large and suggested that the project hits the mark for amenities within the R -4. Gabler noted that she had no problem with the variance request because it provided a chance to review the requirement. She suggested that staff include the issue on a future agenda for further commission consideration. Grant Sala suggested that it made sense to vary the requirement as recommended by the developer in order to rent the property. He agreed that there may be a need to look at the requirement in future. Hilgart stated that the project offers a good variety of unit sizes and that the units are 10% larger on average. He pointed out that amenities and open space had seemed to be the goals of the R -4 District more so than size. He noted that the proposed development has triple the open space and only 60% of the density. Fyle asked about project timing. Martin indicated that IRET is looking to break ground for Phase 1 in the spring of 2015 and open at the end of summer. He noted that IRET anticipates rolling right into Phase 2 and hopes to open that portion of the project next winter. Staff recommended that the applicant submit a site improvement phasing plan. Martin indicated that IRET understands and agrees to the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z. As there were no other comments, the public hearing was closed. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014 -077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM B -4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO R -4, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014 -077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY GRANT SALA. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014 -077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING IN AN R -4 DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ALAN HEIDEMANN. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Cl CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014 -077 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IMPOSED IN THE R -4 ZONING DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH SAM BURVEE VOTING IN OPPOSITION DUE TO ISSUE WITH DEVIATING FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Preliminary /Final Plat (Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning. 2. Easement related issues, as well as right -of -way dedication requirements, shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 3. Submission of all plat drawings updated with the revised survey information. 4. Park dedication requirements shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Parks Commission and Council decision. 5. The applicant enters into a development agreement securing the terms of plat and CUP approval. Conditional Use Permit (to allow multi - family housing in an R -4 District): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning and preliminary /final plat. 2. The westerly access is relocated to avoid conflicts with the church property access to the south, as directed by the City Engineer. 3. The easterly access point includes restriping in the street to properly configure the transition between road width along Meadow Oak Avenue. 4. The central access point is reviewed to ensure adequate site lines for traffic exiting the project, including possible amendments to the landscaping plan if necessary. 5. The landscaping plan is modified to specify topsoil spread over the proposed lawn areas. 6. All landscape areas are irrigated. 7. All other applicable use standards, as identified as part of site plan review, shall be satisfied. 8. The applicant enters into a development agreement securing terms of plat and CUP approval. Variance (from minimum dwelling unit size requirement of the R -4 District): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning, preliminary /final plat and conditional use permit. 2. The average dwelling unit size (in Phases 1 and 2) shall not be less than 900 square feet. 3. In no case shall any one bedroom dwelling unit be less than 600 square feet in size. 5 General Site Plan: 1. The City approve the requested rezoning, preliminary /final plat, conditional use permit and variance. 2. A phasing plan be provided which provides a plan illustrating Phase 1 site improvements. Such improvements shall include, but may not be limited to, building footprints, amenities, surface parking/drive lanes and grading. 3. The number of uncovered parking stalls upon the site be reduced from 223 stalls to 222 stalls. 4. The applicant considers amending the landscape plan to illustrate plantings around proposed courtyard amenities. 5. The City Engineer provide comment and recominendation regarding the placement of trees (Sugar Maple and Mountain Ash) within the 20 foot drainage and utility easement which borders the subject site's north property line. 6. The applicant provide details related to proposed courtyard amenities including, but not limited to, fence details, sidewalks, landscaping and the timing of such improvements. 7. An internal sidewalk connection from the property to the Meadow Oak sidewalk shall be added to the site plan in a location to be determined based on. 8. The detached garage buildings be finished with materials similar to that used on the principal structure. 9. The applicant provide details related to waste storage /removal and loading activities, subject to City approval.. 10. The setback of the proposed monument sign from Meadow Oak Avenue be increased to 15 feet (to satisfy the minimum setback requirement of the Ordinance). 11. The monument sign plan be modified to include a measurable scale (to determine sign area). 12. All signs erected upon the subject site shall be subject to sign permit. 13. The submitted grading and utility plans shall be subject to review comment by the City Engineer. Staff noted that the rezoning, preliminary and final plat and the conditional use permit would come before City Council for consideration on August 25th. The variance does not require City Council approval. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(C) — Variances, subsection (4) Review and (7) Time Limit, and amendment to Chanter 2, Section 4(D) — Conditional Use Permits, subsection (8)Time Limit. Applicant: City of Monticello. Planninp, Case Number: 2014 -041 Steve Grittman summarized that the current language relating to the variance appeal is inconsistent with state law, and unnecessarily limits the process of seeking elected representative consideration of a zoning application or related request. To accommodate the mandates of Mn. Stat. Chapter 462.357, Subd. 6., the proposed ordinance amendment would read as follows: 2.4 (C)(4)(c) Appeal of Variance Decision Decisions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals are final unless the appheant an affected party, including any member of the City Council, files a written appeal outlining the basis for the appeal within ten fWe (4510) business days of the decision. Charlotte Gabler asked if the amendment would apply to the Planning Commission as well. Grittman indicated that that it would apply to all affected parties. A companion amendment related to timeframe was also proposed as follows: 2.4 (C)(7) Time Limit (a) Unless otherwise specified in the Variance, if a Building Permit has not been secured within sus one 1 year of the date of the Variance approval, the Variance shall become invalid. Permitted timeframes do not change with successive owners. (b) Upon written request, one extension of six menths one (1) year may be granted by the Community Development Department if the applicant can show good cause. Staff also proposed a housekeeping amendment to reflect the fact that either operation of a use under a conditional use permit approval or building permit request may occur within the one year timeframe. The amendment is as follows: 2.4 (D)(8) Time Limit (b) If the operation of the use and/or issuance of building permits has not commenced within one year of the date of approval, the applicant may petition for an extension of time in which to eemplet€ commence the work that has been granted by the Conditional Use Permit. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Community Development Department at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the eenditional use peFmit one year en riod. Charlotte Gabler asked if this amendment would apply to commercial and residential zoning and if the timeline could be adjusted. Grittman said that the zoning would not matter and that the timeline could be addressed in Exhibit Z. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -078 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 601, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE LIST OF POTENTIAL BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT APPELLANTS, AND CLARIFY TIMING FOR ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL, BASED ON 7 FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALLEN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 7. Discussion Item — Final Plat, Liberty Park Plat 2 Steve Grittman pointed out that, although the subdivision ordinance does not require that the Planning Commission formally review the Final Plat, Liberty Park Plat 2, the Planning Commission Chair is required to sign the plat upon City Council approval. Grittman briefly recapped the proposed development to provide a bit of background information for the commission's review. Liberty Park Plat 2 is currently platted as Outlot A of Liberty Park and is being final platted into a legal lot and block. This action will allow for the construction of a new Von Hanson's facility on vacant property adjacent to the Liberty Bank at County Road 39 and Hart Boulevard. The proposed retail use is permitted in the B -2 (Limited Business) district. Staff will conduct a site plan review to ensure compliance with zoning regulations. No action related to this matter was required. 8. Community Development Director's Report Semi- Trailer Parking — Staff contacted the realtor responsible for the parcel at Broadway Market in an effort to respond to Charlotte Gabler's concern about semi- trailer parking in that location. The realtor agreed to handle the situation. Schumann noted that vehicles cannot be stored on a parcel with no principal use. League of MN Cities Training - Planning Commissioners were reminded to review LMC's online course, "Land Use Basics: Grasping the Ground Rules" in preparation for a follow -up discussion session to be held in September. Market Matching Report - The City Council and EDA both took action to approve a new contract with WSB Market Matching through June 30a`, 2015. TAC Update — Staff and WSB representatives met with the Wright County Transportation Committee to discuss alternatives for maintaining on- street parking on West Broadway as part of the intersection improvement project at CSAH 75 /TH 25. Staff hope to bring a recommendation to the TAC in the next month or so. Schumann noted the need to keep things moving because federal and state funding for those intersection improvements beginning in 2015. Regional Transportation Planning — Clint Herbst and Tom Perrault have attended two regional transportation meetings on behalf of the City. Meeting minutes can be made available upon approval. I -94 - The I -94 reconstruction project at Monticello is underway. The I -94 Coalition continues to advocate for lane expansion planning. Travelers are invited to sign up for MnDOT email project alerts and report traffic conditions by sending JamGrams. Bedrock Motors - Sam Burvee asked about the status of the Bedrock Motors dealership project. Schumann noted that the business had initiated the online sales component of their business as allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. They have also been making internal improvements and contacted staff to discuss sign permitting to ready the site for used car sales. 8. Adiournment ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:17 PM. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: October 7, 2014 Attest: `.� / / � Angela Sch TTI 'uom-munity Development Director E