Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-02-2012MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart StaffPresert: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackemnueller, Steve Grithnan -NAC 1. Call to order. Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Bill Spartz introduced and welcomed new commissioners Sam Burvee and Grant Sala. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Special Meeting of September 4th, 2012 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2012. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. b. Regular Meeting of September 4th, 2012 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments. None. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Fyle requested the addition of an update on the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting. Commissioner Gabler added an update on the Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service. Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning from B -3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot commercial development including vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values Statement. Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet Planner Grittman provided a review of the application, stating that the applicant is seeking to be released from the Planned Unit Development applied to the Carcone Addition, a four lot commercial subdivision which overlays the former Monticello Ford dealership site located in the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94. Specifically, the applicants wish to convert the former Ford dealership into a Chevrolet dealership and establish their own Planned Unit Development. While no changes to the footprint of the existing dealership building or parking areas are proposed, a number of site modifications are required by General Motors (GM) to meet their branding requirements. Grittman reviewed both the site modifications and the conditions which would remain unchanged. He indicated that access to the property is gained via two curb cuts on Sandberg Road. The most southerly of the two enters the site along the south side of the building and provides direct access to the sales lot and customer parking area. The northerly access point is shared with the West Metro automobile dealership to the north. This drive provides access to the service portion of the Cornerstone building, as well as access to the West Metro property. The two parcels jointly utilize this area for loading/unloading of car transports, utility and service vehicles, and as a secondary access point for other traffic. Grittman stated that an existing Conditional Use Permit for this shared access will remain in place concurrent with the new PUD approval, guaranteeing both properties' use of the access drive. Because the proposed Cornerstone Chevrolet dealership will be replacing the former Ford dealership at the site, the footprint of the existing parking area will remain unchanged. Landscaping will also remain unchanged, and currently consists of a combination of shrub and tree species. Grittman noted that the applicants have indicated that they may add ornamental landscaping to the west edge of the property, but prefer to consider that independently rather than as a condition of the PUD. The City has confirmed its agreement with this position as a part of the Public Values Statement governing the development plan for the project. Site lighting is existing and is proposed to remain the same as was previously approved by the City. Grittman went on to highlight some of the exterior and interior building modifications proposed. Further, Grittman stated that changes to site grading have not been proposed; as such, storm water drainage patterns on the site should remain unchanged as well. Grittman next focused on the signage proposed by the applicant and staff's recominendation related to that request. He stated that the total area of wall signs proposed will not exceed the permitted 15% of total building fagade fronting not more than two public streets. However, the applicant is seeking additional flexibility in free- standing signage. Specifically, the applicant is seeking a 200 square foot (10'x 20') message board measuring 20 feet in height. The sign would be located along the east Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 side of the subject site, a 60 square foot internally illuminated monument sign located at the southwest corner of the site and a relocated 75 square feet (8' -8" x 8' -8 ") pylon/freestanding sign. The sign would measure 28 feet in height and would be located at the southeast coiner of the site. Grittman stated that staff has recommended that the applicant provide a scaled sign plan on a certificate of survey indicating the exact location of proposed freestanding signs to confirm compliance with City sign standards and setbacks. Grittman indicated that for the purposes of freestanding signage, the allowances of the Freeway Bonus Sign District apply. Those allowances permit two freestanding signs for multiple frontage parcels. One sign may be 32 feet in height, and up to 200 square feet in area. The second sign may be up to 14 feet in height, 100 square feet in area, and of monument -style design. The code thus allows up to 300 total square feet of freestanding sign area. The applicants have proposed 335 square feet on three separate structures. In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. At the same time, signs must be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in which the particular land use is allowed; in this case, the B -3, Highway Business District, which were reviewed in consideration of proposed signage. The City may grant flexibility under the PUD designation. To accommodate the applicant's request, but still attend to the general requirements of the code, Grittman indicated the following changes to the sign proposal are recommended by staff: 1. Allow a maximum freestanding sign area of 300 square feet (or up to 350 square feet if the applicant agrees to forgo future temporary signage). 2. Require that changeable copy /digital display may be no more than 50 square feet of the total freestanding sign area (or up to 66 square feet if the messages include regular time and temperature displays). 3. Permit the proposed signage to be spread over three total signs, one of which must be of monument style design meeting the requirements of the code (14 feet height, 100 square feet maximum area). 4. No individual sign may be greater than 200 square feet, of which no more than 66 square feet of area may be changeable copy (as noted in item 2 above). 5. Apart from the monument sign, the two pylon signs may be constructed up to 32 feet in height, in accordance with the allowances of the Freeway Bonus District sign height. 6. The freestanding signs are constructed to comply with the requirements of the sign ordinance in terms of materials. Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 Concluding his remarks, Grittman stated that subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, staff recommends approval of the adoption of the Public Values Statement, rezoning to PUD, and Concept and Development Stage PUD. This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and results in a development that meets the objectives and requirements of the City's Planned Unit Development zoning regulations. Commissioner Fyle questioned what the final staff recommendation for the digital message board was. Mr. Grittman replied that staff recommended that a maximum of 66 square feet of a digital message board would be part of the sign package. Commissioner Gabler questioned whether the Exhibit Z condition requiring the pathway construction was a set in stone requirement. Mr. Grittman responded that it was not a part of the applicant's plan, but staff recommended that a pathway be constructed along Highway 25 frontage, within MnDOT right of way. Commissioner Burvee asked which highway the digital sign would be focused towards. Mr. Grittman said it would be facing Highway 25 traffic. Commissioner Burvee clarified that it was staff's recommendation that to allow a 200 square foot sign with 66 square feet available for digital messaging. Mr. Grittman clarified that it is staffs recommendation that 366 square feet is available, any individual sign would be no larger than 200 square feet. Commissioner Spartz referred to exhibit Z and asked if there was anything written that says they forgo temporary signage. Mr. Grittman responded that that is the intent of our recommendation, item 4 -D. Commission Spartz opened the public meeting Steven Rohlf, representing the owner of Cornerstone Chevrolet, addressed the Commission. Rohlf focused his comments on the signage. He informed the Commission that the sign Cornerstone Chevrolet owns in Elk River along Highway 10 is 200 square feet and that the majority of the messages that appear upon that sign are connnunity oriented; there are biblical verses, some car advertisements, there are car safety tips, highway patrol messages pertaining to safe and sober awareness, generally things that are meant to benefit people. Rohlf stated that if Cornerstone Chevrolet were granted 200 square feet, Mr. Rolf guarantees the sarne thing would appear in Monticello. In addition to this, the total amount of signage would be 335 square feet, which is less than the allowable square footage, and the signs will be shorter in height. Mr. Rolf is seeking the Commission's opinion on this proposal. Commissioner Gabler commented that the 200 square foot message board in Elk River seems appropriate at that location. It is on Highway 10, where it is a more spread out atmosphere, not in the central corridor. She stated that in this particular area of Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 Monticello, a 200 square foot sign would seem loud. Commissioner Gabler believes that the same effect can be created on a much smaller sign. Mr. Rohlf responded to that by stating that he has dealt with signage for 30 years, and less is more when it comes to the message, but it is not the case with the size of the sign. It would be less effective, if visible at all. Cormnissioner Gabler asked staff for the size of the Community Center's message board sign. The staff estimated the sign to be 50 square feet, and the tradeoff was prohibition on other temporary signs. Commissioner Gabler asked Mr. Rohlf if the digital signage for the Community Center would be sufficient. Mr. Rohlf replied he is asking for at least 100 square feet, because it is a standard size for an electronic sign, and 66 square feet is an odd size. Commissioner Sala questioned what could be written on a 100 square foot sign that would not fit onto a 50 square foot sign. Mr. Rohlf answered that if traffic is traveling at a certain pace, if the writing is too small, the intended audience will not be able to see anything. The sign company visited the property and accounted for the speeds on Highway 25, taking this into consideration, the company recommended that 100 square feet would be okay, and 200 square feet would be ideal. He stated that 66 square feet is 34% less, which is a significant amount. He reassured the Commission that there are a lot of positive messages that Cornerstone Chevrolet does not want people to miss. Commissioner Spartz asked Rohlf to confirm that the number staff feels comfortable with recommending is 366 square feet. Mr. Grittman confirmed that statement to be accurate; that the total free- standing signage not exceed that number. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicant for the total number of square footage he was proposing. Mr. Rohlf responded with 335 square feet. Commissioner Spartz asked Mr. Grittman to clarify the issue. Mr. Grittman confirmed that the applicant is applying for less square feet than the maximum, but more of that signage is digital than what is recommended by staff. Commissioner Fyle stated that he conducted research regarding traffic issues as it relates to digital signs and did not find anything significant. He relied heavily on the Federal Highway Administration for the information. The only concerns he had were related to scrolling messages, and messages that flashed. Commissioner Fyle asked for those types of delivery to be excluded. Grittman noted that messaging of that type is already prohibited by code. Commissioner Fyle stated that as the total square footage is less, and they are willing to put up community events, storm alerts, and perhaps even allow the police force access to it for major events, he is willing to permit 200 square feet of messaging board. Mr. Rohlf has no issues with flashing or scrolling messages. Commissioner Spartz stated that while he is not in favor of the 66 square foot sign Planwing Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 because he doesn't believe it would allow Cornerstone to advertise at full capacity, he is also not sure that 200 square feet is the answer, either. And if they could meet somewhere in the middle, that that would be ideal. He also asked the applicant to address the pathway issue. Mr. Rolf stated that he had concerns with the pathway requirement. And after talking to 30 +year employees of the dealership, not one of them remembers a time when someone walked into a car dealership to purchase a car. Mainly, people have something they wish to trade. He described the pathway as an impact fee, especially since it is not a new business they are walking into, rather, one that has existed in that location many years. In addition, it is on MnDOT right of way for the length of the building, and has absolutely no benefit to the business. However, added that the location is a PUD, and if Cornerstone Chevrolet were granted the 200 square foot sign, the sidewalk would be built, at Cornerstone's expense, as long as staff retrieved the permits from MnDOT. Commissioner Spartz concluded that sounded like negotiation, and that Planning Commission can work somewhat with negotiations under PUD, however, their recommendation goes out to the Council. Commissioner Spartz had a question regarding off street /on street loading and unloading of trucks. Mr. Grittman answered that there is room and a designated location on site to load and unload bucks. Commissioner Spartz confirmed with Mr. Rohlf that he is familiar with will all items in Exhibit Z and is only challenging items 4 and 7, but agree with all the others. Mr. Rohlf concurred. Commissioner Spartz welcomed anyone else to address the council. Bill Beard introduced himself as one of the principals in the Beard Group. They are a real estate development, and brokerage company located in Hopkins, MN at 750 2" d Street NE Suite 100. Mr. Beard is representing Jeff Sell from West Metro Auto. Mr. Beard asked the Commission to recall that this parcel used to be all one PUD. In the beginning they tried to figure out how Mr. Sell could buy his particular parcel. Instead of a whole new PUD he would operate under a separate CUP with the underlying PUD that is in place. What Mr. Sell didn't realize with this application was that the applicant wanted to be removed from the PUD. Mr. Beard stated that the property started and developed as one, with one drainage system, and it used to have one electrical lighting system, with common easements. The concern that West Metro has isn't with what Cornerstone is doing, the concern is what this would mean to Mi•. Sell, how he would be affected if he were left with the remaining PUD. His request is that the Commission table this request for now so they can get an attorney and figure out what this would mean for Mr. Sell. The attorney would also look at the draft of the PUD. Mr. Beard asked if a draft of the PUD existed. Mr. Grittman responded that there is one drafted. Mr. Beard said they could get an attorney look at it Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 right away. Mr. Beard simply does not think it is fair without the input of the neighbor, and wants to make sure that Mr. Sell isn't unduly burdened. Mr. Grittman said that the action the Planning Commission and staff would like to take on this concern is to unwind the PUD, but not unwind the obligations to the neighbor. They still have easement obligations on their property that the neighbor has the benefit of, there are clarifications between the two parties such as joint and cross access along the north boundary along the North access point from Sandburg Road. Nonetheless, Grittman indicated that the City Attorney has guided the staff's process for this request. He stated that it is in the city's interest that the neighbor's benefits are not being affected. Staffs recommendation is that there is no need to delay this process. Mr. Spartz asked if the current PUD that is in place recognizes the joint parking agreement, and drainage agreement. Mr. Grittman asserted that the applicant continues to be obligated by cross access with Mr. Sell. That was partly done by the CUP even prior to the PUD when Carcone Addition. He stated that the City engineers examined drainage agreement, and it was found that it was a private agreement between the two parties. Mr. Rohlf described three issues that connect the West Metro and proposed Cornerstone sites together. First, the neighboring property has a sign on Chelsea Road and Sandburg Road that is on the property which Cornerstone would be buying. In addition, there is a CUP and private cross- access agreement relating to the entrance points on Sandberg Road and lastly, there is a blanket drainage easement which the seller is working to address. Mr. Rohlf said their goal is to own the property in mid - November and to be moving in December. Mr. Beard asked again for more time to have an attorney examine the document since they can be very detailed. Commissioner Spartz followed up on that by saying ideally, he would like to see this move forward by staying on the time frame for the business's sake. He doesn't see how holding up the process would benefit the developer. He did however, recommend to Mr. Beard to take the information, bring it to an attorney, and that he should have enough time to address this before Council meets, if a problem were to be found. Mr. Grittman assured the Commission that staff is aware of the stated issues, and has been working on them with the guidance and advice of the City Attorney. By replacing the old PUD that had certain obligations for the Cornerstone site and West Metro site with a new one for Cornerstone, the applicant continues obligations it had under old PUD as it concerns their neighbor. There are different requirements for site development, but same obligations towards their neighbor. Mr. Grittman also brought up the timing issues that would arise with the Planning Commission's 60 day agency action schedule, should the decision be tabled until the next meeting. Commissioner Gabler asked staff how many days notice is given for the public hearing notices. Staff responded that a 10 day notice is given, with two notices in the local 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 newspaper. Commissioner Gabler concluded that Mr. Beard has had 10 days to read and understand the material. The way she interprets this is that there was a lack of information on Mr. Beard's part, and as such, there is no sense in holding up Cornerstone's progress. Commissioner Fyle offered that a public hearing exists for anyone who has a concern they feel they need to express. He said he doesn't see a problem with this particular issue, and concludes he feels a decision should be made on this issue tonight. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fyle stated that he had no problem with the 366 square feet. He will go along with the increased electronic sign size of 10 feet by 20 feet provided a substantial amount of the messages are community - based. Commissioner Sala agreed that the sign should be larger than 66 square feet, but that 200 square feet seems excessive. He would like to see a number that is more in the middle. Commissioner Gabler stated that she is agreement with the proposal with exception of signage. She was willing to go to 75 -100 square feet, but not 200 square feet. Commissioner Burvee said he was still trying to find a reason to change the ordinance for this applicant. If there is a set number, what is the reasoning to go outside of that number. Commissioner Spartz clarified that it was brought to the Commission as a PUD, which can allow for certain tradeoffs. Commissioner Spartz also asked for thoughts on the pathway. Commissioner Gabler suggested it stay in. She said that it comes down to council decision, commission can make a recommendation, but ultimately council can pull it or keep it. Commissioners Fyle and Sala agree that there is a need for the pathway, however Commissioner Fyle thinks 10 feet wide sounds excessive. Mr. Grittman clarified that the reason for 10 feet is for maintenance convenience. Also, it is less expensive to install a wider blacktop trail than a narrow cement sidewalk. Community Development Director Schumann offered another view point on the side walls She stated that Planning Commission is the first point of review for consistency with the with the comprehensive plan, and have ability to recommend consistency with the comprehensive plan, including the park and pathway plan. The highway 25 route is a secondary route on the trail system so commission does have that ability to provide recommendation to council. Ultimately, however, funding is a council decision. It is an important statement for commission to recognize this issue because it connects to the Chelsea Road system. Commissioner Spartz agrees that ideally the pathway would remain in the agreement. When it comes to signage, he is willing to support up to a 100 square foot sign for digital messaging. Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1, INCLUDING a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT FOR CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET; b. RESOLUTION #2012 -081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #565 C -PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B -3 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A SIGN ALLOWANCE OF A TOTAL OF 366 SQUARE FEET THAT ALLOWS UP TO 200 SQUARE FEET FOR A DIGITAL MESSAGE BOARD. MOTION FAILS BY LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1, INCLUDING a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT FOR CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET; b. RESOLUTION #2012 -081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #565 C -PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B -3 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN ITEMS 1 -9 IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A CHANGE TO ITEM 41) ALLOWING FOR A MAXIMUM MESSAGE BOARD AREA UP 100 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. In discussion on the motion, Mr. Grittman requested that the Commission consider a condition that no on- street loading be permitted as part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER GABLER AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE NO ON- STREET PARKING AS ITEM 10 IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. EXHIBIT Z— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET PUD LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CARCONE ADDITION 1. Applicant maintains the agreements necessary to comply with the existing Conditional Use Permit for cross access with Lot 1, Block 1 Carcone Addifion (West Metro Automotive Dealership site). Planning Commission Minutes -10/2/12 2. Existing landscaping on the site is maintained per plan submissions. Additional landscaping will be a the applicant's discretion, outside of the PUD requirements. 3. Wall signage is installed per plan, as described in the staff report. Future changes to signage will require the applicable sign permits. Expansion or additional signage will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD. 4. Freestanding signage will be changed from the proposed signage to be within the following allowances: a. Three freestanding signs, one of which must be a monument sign. b. Total freestanding sign area to consist of 300 square feet between the three signs, distributed as desired by the applicants. c. Maximum digital message board area of 100 square feet (presuming inclusion of occasional time /temp messaging). d. Digital message board may be added to the 300 square foot maximum if applicants forgo temporary signage as provided in the sign ordinance. e. Monument sign to be no greater than 14 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. f Pylon signs to be no greater than 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area. g. All other sign ordinance regulations apply to freestanding signage. 5. Building materials and design as requested by the applicant. 6. Trash handling equipment is contained within the building or in an enclosure attached to the building of materials consistent with those of the principal building. 7. The applicant construct a pedestrian pathway along the Highway 25 frontage of the site per City specifications, consistent with the direction of the City's Parks and Pathways Plan. 8. Final record plans are developed and provided to the City illustrating compliance with all terms of the PUD approval, other applicable ordinances, and including Exhibit Z. 9. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the PUD approval. Schumann stated that the item will go to City Council meeting on Monday, October 8`h. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zonin¢ Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H), R -3 (Medium Density) Residential District, and amendment to adopt an R -4 (Medium to High Density) Residential District). Applicant: City of Monticello Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the proposed amendment. Grittman indicated that the current R -3 District provides for attached housing in structures of up to 12 units per building. This is a relatively modest density allowance for attached housing, and limits the City's opportunity to attract higher - quality attached housing options. Although occasionally limited due to location and demand, there is a market for luxury attached housing, and as more adults enter a market where attached housing becomes more attractive, higher -end multiple family options would be important to avoid losing those community members to other locations. Grittman stated that the City is handicapped by a lack of higher -end multiple family housing, and as such, it is tempting to assume that all rental housing is the bottom of the market. With a stated Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing housing stock quality, the zoning regulations in place default to assuming that lower density is the only way to increase quality. Grittman noted that there are numerous examples of higher -end attached housing in the area, and especially in other parts of the Twin Cities. These examples are marked by specific elements, however. The approach taken in the attached table is to create an increasing expectation on housing quality as density increases, and place up- front expectations for any housing — similar to the approach taken with the R- IA zoning district in single family housing — greater emphasis on open space, architecture, building materials, and general site design. This objective is possible to achieve, and many times, permitting greater density can help a developer deliver this type of product. In the past, however, the ordinance has not been strong enough to insist on the quality sought by the City, and the PUD process has been difficult to negotiate in an objective way. As a result, even PUD projects have not come close to the City's intent for "step -up" housing quality. Grittman explained that table provided in the staff report addresses housing by type, rather than zoning district, in an attempt to identify the requirements that each style of housing would require for it to meet the City's objectives. The three categories uses are (1) Townhouses (currently possible in the R -2 and R -3 zoning districts), (2) Small - building multi - family of 6 -12 units (similar to the current R -3 allowance) and (3) Large - building multi - family of 13 or more units (not available under the current code). Nh-. Grittman stated that the goal is to develop zoning language that would allow higher density but then also require it at the same time to meet more stringent zoning regulations for development that were not present in the old code, and not present in the current code and if someone were going to propose a higher density project, there would be some specific site conditions and zoning regulations that apply to them that would ensure that the project is a higher quality, higher amenity, higher visual amenity project than what we would have commonly seen from an apartment style or multi - family housing in the past. 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 Mr. Grittman explained that there are two ways to think about how the three categories of housing can be clustered for zoning purposes. One approach would be to add this table to the R -3 District, and establish under that zoning category the eligible uses and associated requirements. As such, a property owner with R -3 zoned land would be able to choose which of the three, or possibly what combination of the three, would part of a project and design accordingly. The second option is to pull out the third column of Large- building multi - family and create a new R -4 zoning district. The advantage for the City with this approach is the level of discretion at the rezoning level. If all options are clustered in the R -3 District, the City may have more difficulty declining an application for the higher density option in an area that seems inappropriate, even though the required performance standards would require a reasonably quality project. If an applicant must seek a rezoning to R -4, the City has a much greater review authority to deny a rezoning request for locational reasons. In any case, the performance standards are intended to increase the requirements for this type of housing in the community. The higher density projects would have the greatest level of performance standards to qualify as a minimum project, ensuring that any project proposed would exceed the standards of the City's current multi- family housing stock. Finally, the table incorporates considerations for permitting densities on the greater end through performance standards, and provides that all senior housing would require a PUD approach — in this way, the densities, unit sizes, parking supply, and many other senior - specific housing designs would be addressed under the PUD zoning approach, allowing the City to respond to what is a varied and dynamic market, depending on level of services and /or care. Grittman reported that staff recomrnends Alternative 2, although Alternative 1 would accommodate similar objectives, with only the loss of some locational control for the higher density zoning option. The Planning Commission, if considering approval, may add a finding that the provision of multiple family housing at higher densities is a reasonable zoning allowance, provided the project quality is sufficiently upgraded to accomplish the City's objective of increased quality and "step -up" housing, and will add balance to the City's housing stock in the higher-density range through higher value projects. In staffs view, the R -4 option give the city a little more authority in choosing were those locations are. The reason that is, is the way zoning decisions are made in cities is the courts give the cities the greatest amount of discretion when you look at how you zone your community, When you chose particular zoning for parts of your city, courts have very little say in the review of those districts. It is easy to make findings that support those decisions that are essentially bulletproof in court. The next level of discretion collapses into once you are in a zoning district are you going to allow one type of development or another, what kind of conditions are you going to apply to one, especially when you're writing code for the rules once you're in that zoning code, you're still at a relatively high level of discretion. Staff s goal is to have the most allowable decisions, but also the most defensible ones. Mr. Grittman closed his comments and entertained Commission's questions. Commissioner Fyle said he has not yet been in agreement to start a new R -4, and he has 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 not changed his mind. He stated that he is fine with R -3 standards with the PUD giving the City the flexibility to decide what it wants in a development. Commissioner Gabler stated that she is a proponent of the separation into an R -4 for the fact that from a development perspective it is a lot clearer and easier to understand. She said it also provides the ability to designate where those land areas so that you know if you have an R -3 or an R -4. She inquired whether the City could apply the R -4 as an overlay on top of the R -3 as an overlay instead of a separate district. Mr. Grittman replied that the City could create an overlay district, essentially creating performance requirements. Commissioner Spartz commented that if the City is going to have high density, it should get everything desired as part of that up- front, and as such, he is leaning toward R -4. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Commission Spartz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Burvee said he needed more time to examine the information. Commissioner Gabler had no additional comments. Commissioner Sala asked Commissioner Fyle why he was against the R -4. Commissioner Fyle responded that with R -4, there will be a lot of back and forth about what is allowable in each district. Under a PUD, the City would keep the current zoning in place so it won't complicate anything more. To change the zoning may make things easier up front, but easier to leave it alone and let the applicant come forward and we can determine if it is an appropriate location and move at that time. COMMISSIONER GABLER MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2012 -82 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 566, AMENDING THE R -3 ZONING DISTRICT (SECTION 3.4(H)) THROUGH THE ADDITION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE R -4, HIGH DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, RELATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND HIGHER DENSITY ALLOWANCES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO SECTIONS 4.1(J) - LANDSCAPING, 4.8 - PARKING, 4.11(C) — BUILDING MATERIALS, AND 5.2(C)(2) — ATTACHED DWELLING STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4 -1. November Planning Commission Meeting Date. (AS) Director Schumann stated that the 2012 General Election falls on November 6th, Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting date. The Veteran's Day holiday (an observed Federal holiday) falls this year on November 12th , and as such, the City Council meeting will be moved to Tuesday, November 13th. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the following dates available for a rescheduled meeting. Both of these dates offer availability in the Mississippi Room. Wednesday, November 7th 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12 Tuesday, November 20th COMMISSIONER FYLE MOTIONED TO RESCHEDULE THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6TH, 2012 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2012. MOTION SECONDED BY COMISSIONER GABLER, MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 8. Community Development Director Report. Schumann introduced Ellen Eden, Community Development Intern from St. Cloud State. 9. Added Items• Transportation Advisory Meeting- Commissioner F yle Commissioner Fyle stated that the group reviewed progress on planning for the Fallon Avenue bridge overpass and the second Mississippi River bridge crossing, In addition, the TAC did discuss the 7t" Street extension west of Kmart, over to Elm Street, which is being reviewed for completion in a feasibility study by the City Council.. Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service- Commissioner Gabler Commissioner Gabler reported that as part of the Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service, the Monticello Girl Scouts will be removing leaves and debris from storm drains in the downtown area from loam -12pm on October 13t". 9. Adiourn COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:41 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Recorder: Ellen Edens_,' . Approved: November 7, 2012 Attest: 14 Director