Loading...
City Council Minutes 11-01-2011 SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - JOINT CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 1, 2011— 6:30 P.M. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Council Present: Clint Herbst, Glen Posusta, Tom Perrault, Lloyd Hilgart Absent: Brian Stumpf Planning Commission Present: Charlotte Gabler, Brad Fyle, Rod Dragsten, Barry Voight Absent: Bill Spartz Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Jeff O'Neill, Ron Hackemnueller, representatives for Weinhold Investments 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Clint Herbst at 6:30 p.m. 2. Special Meeting/Workshop — Purpose The Planning Commission and City Council will consider a Collaborative Stage Planned Unit Development for Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition. 3. Consideration of approving a Public Values Statement for Collaborative Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD), Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition — Weinhold Investments LLC Angela Schumann started off the meeting stating objectives of the meeting and then turned it over to Steve Grittman of NAC. Steve explained that the staff report explains the development plans and the PUD requirements based on city zoning ordinance. The development plan is focused on the former Monticello Ford sales property now known as Carcone Addition; Steve Grittman outlined the area included in the proposed development. The existing building is intended for multiple commercial tenants with potential uses related to both B -3 and B -4 zoning districts, which may result in requests for rezoning. The primary sales lot would eventually be planned for a restaurant and a 2- story office building. The Developer does not have current plans for the other lot across Sandberg Road, which could potentially be used for overflow parking. Much of the property to the north of the overflow lot would be subdivided for purposes of resale to adjoining property owner for automobile sales. The Developer has also purchased property west of Gould's which is not part of this proposal. Basically, the PUD process allows design of new zoning for this proposed development necessary to support the future tenants and uses. Steve Grittman is looking for specific comments and suggestions to guide the development of this property. He referred participants to the discussion guide enclosed with the agenda packet. Minutes of Joint City Council /Planning Commission Special Meeting— November 1, 2011 Page 1 Steve Grittman commented about flexibility in parking and the need to look at that as this property develops. Clint Herbst stated that parking may also be determined by what develops to the west. Charlotte Gabler asked if there would be any design elements that would affect the corner at Chelsea and Sandberg Road. The Developer explained the plan to add an extra entrance along Sandberg Road. Angela Schumann pointed out the comments from the City Engineer in respect to traffic movement such as turn lanes at that corner to facilitate movement. Steve Grittman asked for comments about the site itself. Glen Posusta asked if there were already tenants in mind for the proposed restaurant and office building as the Developer was intending to subdivide the property at this time. The Developer stated that he does have them in place already. Tom Perrault asked about the property elevations and how those buildings would sit on the property. The Developer stated that the office building front would face west and the restaurant would be north- facing toward the existing Ford building and Hwy 25. The Developer explained how the buildings would look from Hwy 25. Steve Grithnan directed the participants to the discussion questions. #1— What design considerations are being used by the Developereloper that are driving the proposed architectural concepts? The Developer colmmented about design considerations that are driving the architectural concepts, such as the materials, colors and adormnents for the exterior of the buildings. Glen Posusta asked why they chose to place the office building on the corner rather than the restaurant. Developer likes the smaller, lighter building closer to the existing building to give balance to the structures. Glen Posusta asked about uses in the existing building. Developer noted that they are intending to keep oil change and car wash uses along with a car detail cleaning company. The rest of the building would be for offices. Developer stated that he has tenants for approximately half of the building, including an electrical company, a tax company, and professional trainer. Steve Grittman noted that these will all need to be considered when defining the PUD district and allowed uses. Barry Voight suggested that they may want to remove general warehousing from the allowed B -3 uses as this is a highly visible area. Clint Herbst stated that he would not want to put too many limitations on the uses as that might ultimately restrict future businesses too much. #2 — What aspects of this site are important for the City officials in seeing that the property is developed to maximize its value to the community? Steve Grittman noted that someone had already mentioned high visibility would be important at this corner. Tom Perrault noted that surrounding uses could have an impact on the value. Clint Herbst feels that multiple tenants on the property should produce Minutes of Joint City Council /Planning Commission Special Meeting— November 1, 2011 Page 2 higher quality businesses. Lloyd Hilgart thought that there should be consistency between the exterior of the buildings. Clint Herbst also noted that it would be important to consider appearances of the buildings from all four sides, such as location of loading docks. Glen Posusta pointed out that landscaping would be an important feature that should be added to the site. Clint Herbst stated that beautification is important but to take care not to make the requirements too stringent, such as a proliferation of trees that would crowd the site. Steve Grittman clarified that the group is seeking additional landscaping to what is on the site currently. Angela Schumann noted that there are commercial guidelines on landscaping in the ordinance that will be looked as part of the process. Steve Grittman explained that there is flexibility with the PUD process to identify specific design features such as landscaping. Barry Voight asked to talk about signs allowed in the B -4 district. Angela Schumann explained this property is located within the freeway bonus district. Barry Voight stated that the freeway bonus district language may allow two signs, but requires one of the two signs to be a monument. Barry Voight stated that he would prefer that provision requiring a monument be applied to his site. Developer commented on their preferences for signage so that they could obtain visibility from the freeway as well as for local traffic. Steve Grittman explained that the code may allow more signage due to the number of parcels and buildings, however the PUD allows for the consolidation of signage that the group appears to be looking for. Angela Schumann suggested that the Planning Commission should take a closer look at the zoning provisions for signs and how they could be applied to the PUD. #3 — How well does the site function currently for public values, including transportation, stormwater, utilities, and open space or pathways? Steve Grittman invited comments on site function related to transportation and utilities. Clint Herbst asked why a traffic study is being requested; Steve Grittman explained that staff wanted to look at traffic patterns at various times of the day and the impact that might have on future traffic from current and proposed businesses. Charlotte Gabler explained what she has found when trying to access Chelsea Road from Sandberg Road in the early evening. Angela Schumann noted that the City Engineer would like to take a closer look at the traffic in close proximity to Hwy 25. It was noted that there is no sidewalk on any portion of the site and that both internal and external site connections would be examined as part of the review. 97 — What specific amenities can the City identify that iustifies the use of PUD on this site? Are there others that would be critical in considering final approval of the project? Hwo do these mesh with the developer's proposal? Steve Grittman noted that when looking at a PUD on this site, amenities can add value to the site. Lloyd Hilgart asked what types of things the Developer would gain through a PUD on this site. Some items noted were cross - parking and mixed uses. Lloyd Hilgart questioned how much the City might be giving to the Developer with a PUD rather than a Minutes of Joint City Council /Planning Commission Special Meeting— November 1, 2011 Page 3 specifically -zoned lot. Charlotte Gabler commented that she feels the Developer is not asking for much considering that this is a PUD proposal. Steve Grittlnan suggested that an amenity that can be identified is the aesthetic appearance of the buildings at this corner that can be gained through a PUD. Several comments were made about adding a path or sidewalk to the site for both internal and external access. Developer would not be opposed to adding sidewalk along Hwy 25 and talked about the possibility of extending sidewalks along Hwy 25 south to Kjellberg's. A number of comments were offered on the viability of a sidewalk along Hwy 25 on this site. Angela Schumann asked about probability for outdoor seating at the restaurant. The applicant indicated that there would likely be outdoor seating as part of the final proposal. #8 — What specific areas of flexibility from the ordinance requirements are requested by the Developer and do any raise issues for City officials? #9 — Is there general agreement that the identified amenities and other objectives iustify and outweigh the flexibility being sought? #10 — Should the developer be encouraged to proceed with a Concept PUD submission? Steve Grittman asked for comments on concerns or recommendations related to this project relative to questions 8 through 10. Brad Fyle expressed his belief that there should be adequate on -site parking for the proposed uses and feels that they should not rely on overflow parking. Steve Grittman pointed out that this would be considered during the PUD process. The Developer said that they have studied this quite a bit and feel that the overflow area would not be a high need. They currently have over 200 parking stalls in the proposed design, which would meet the requirements for the uses that are proposed at this time. Jeff O'Neill asked about the artist renderings, which look very nice. He was wondering about the potential for changing the appearance of the buildings if Developer finds they need to cut back to make this project work. Steve Grittman explained that the drawings are not part of the approvals for this meeting. The buildings must meet the design criteria in the zoning ordinance and drawings will be submitted for review at a future meeting. Glen Posusta stated that he would like drawings that show all sides of the proposed buildings along with the elevations shown from all sides. Clint Herbst asked about the time frame that they are looking at. Developer said they want to proceed as quickly as possible within the time fraJne for the City to process their request. Developer commented on immediate work on the existing building to remove interior furniture and accessories and some painting. No exterior work would be done until approvals are obtained. Steve Grittman summarized the discussion and pointed out that the objective of the Developer is to remodel the existing Ford building and add buildings that complement the area in an aesthetic manner. In regard to signage, the City would prefer some Minutes of Joint City Council /Planning Commission Special Meeting— November 1, 2011 Page 4 consolidated signage but willing to use the flexibility of the PUD to define sign allowances. The City believes infrastructure on site is in reasonably good shape with some reason to review traffic movement and identify possible improvements. City will look at site layout and suggest improvements that would be amenable on the site. City finds that land uses being proposed are acceptable to expand zoning for B -3 and B -4 uses with some exceptions; should provide applicant with broad flexibility to use site in a commercial manner. City believes combination of use flexibility, architectural interests in the project, and some variability in parking design for this project is appropriate for the development of a PUD for the property and encourages proceeding to the concept PUD level. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT SUMMARIZED BY STEVE GRITTMAN AND AUTHORIZE MOVING FORWARD ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 10 -0. 4. Adjournment TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 10 -0. Recorder: Catherine M. Shuman q� Approved: November 14, 2011 Attest: A : linistrator Minutes of Joint City Council /Planning Commission Special Meeting— November 1, 2011 Page 5