Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 07-03-2001 . 1. 2. " _J. 4. . 5. . AGENDA REGULAR MF:F:TINC w MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .July 3, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith. Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 5, 2001. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens commcnts Public Hearing - Considcration of a request for rcwzoning from I-I to R-2 the eastcrly 119+ feet of parcel occupied by Electro Industries, Inc. at 2 150 W. River Street and the parcel occupied by Riverside Oil at 1156 W. River Street; and consideration of a concept and development stage planned unit development; and consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval for Montissippi Trail Townhomes, a 97-unit townhome development. Applicant: Harstad Holdings, Inc. 6. Review draft ordinance pertaining to signage along the Highway 25 corridor. 7. Report on sanitary sewer reconstruction at Front Street. (Verbal) 8. Review operation of Gateway Music Festival's business office at 531 W. Broadway. former mortuary site. (Verbal) 9. DisCLlss options for development of zoning district regulations supporting step up housing goals. (Verbal) 10. Adjourn. - 1- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - June 5, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Roy Popilek arrived at 7:50 pm Staff: Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Jeff 0 'Neill arrived at 9 pm 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 pm. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 1, 2001. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried. "'l .J. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Richard Carlson asked for an update regarding the business at 530 W. Broadway, if time allows. Chair Frie noted concern from the Mayor and City Council regarding research of the city's sign ordinance and it was noted that this was not placed on the agenda due to the length of this agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an interim use permit allowing a school to operate in the 1.1 district. Applicant: Independent School District 882, Alternative Learning Pro!!ram. Fred Patch. Building Om.ciaL provided the staff report stating the applicant is seeking a two year extension of their permit. As was noted at the previous meeting, the School District has made an effort to find a suitable location in another district. Patch advised that technically. this type of land use is only allowed in the Residential or PS (Public Semi-public) zoning districts \vhich limits the ability of the School District to find another location. -1- . Planning Commission Minutes ~ 06/05/0 I It was also noted again that city staff has not received any complaints regarding the operation of the facility in an Industrial area. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Gene Garman, representative for the ALP, again advised the Planning Commission that they have looked into alternative spots for the school to no avail, and therefore they are seeking an extension. Again he stated that if they are not allowed this interim permit. they would be unable to operate any further. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . Robbie Smith advised that there was no one in attendance who was against this application. Clint Herbst asked staff s reasoning for condition 3 listed in the staff report regarding use of the property during normal school hours only. Grittman stated that possibly it was due to the fact that this is an interim use and staff may not want this building being occupied in the evenings or on weekends due to the location being in the Industrial zoned area. Garman did state they occasionally have evening meetings for parents and that they do have a summer school program as well. Chair Frie asked if the school would be comfortable in coming back to the Planning Commission if they find they need extended hours and Garman stated that was acceptable. Chair Frie also added that he would like the Planning Commission to review this item after one year for an update to if there are any comments regarding the school's search for a new location. It was clarified that this would not require a public hearing but would be an update only. This was also acceptable to the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF SAID INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT CONFLICTS BETWEEN SCHOOL AND INDUSTRIAL USES HAVE BEEN KEPT TO A MINIMUM AT THIS LOCATION, AND BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK AN ALTERNATIVE SITE DURING THE TERM OF THIS EXTENSION TO THE ORIGINAL INTERIM USE PERMIT. nIE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPL Y TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT: I. The interim use permit will expire on August 31,2003. Extension of the subject property for public school use beyond the termination date may only be allowed by re-application to the City. 2. The District agrees to expand the parking area at the direction of the City. The City will direct expanded parking based on its observation of parking demand which may calise the use of on-street parking at any time. . " J. The use of the subject property will be during normal school hours only. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of a request for oreliminary plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Center yh Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. (10) Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report regarding the application for a preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center yh Addition. The Fifth Addition consists of 3 parcels located along Fenning Avenue. Lot 3 will become the site of Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc., which is proposed for construction this year. Each of the parcels meet lot minimum requirements and all are located in the 11 zoning district. No public improvements are required with this development. Grittman added that this is a relatively simple application which the staff is recommending approval of. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., was present. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINAR Y PLAT OF THE MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 5lH ADDITION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the sidevard setback requirements to allow construction of a new driveway. Applicant. Jim Herbst. It was noted that Richard Carlson, Planning Commission member, abstained from this item stating a conf1ict of interest. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report stating that the properties located at 519 and 531 West Broadway shared a driveway for several decades. Last year the property located at 531 West Broadway was sold and both the property owner of 531 and Mr. Jim Herbst. the property owner of 519 West Broadway, decided to discontinue the sharing of the driveway. The shared driveway was an existing non-conforming use in that residential driveways are required to be setback at least 3 feet from sideyard property lines. That portion of the shared driveway located on thc 531 side of the property line will remain as is w-ithout expansion or intensification of the non-conforming LIse. However. Mr. Herbst intends to widen and pave that portion of the shared driveway that will remain on the 519 side of the property line. Widening and paving of the driveway on the 519 side of the property line is an expansion and intensification of the non-contorming LIse and is not allowed without providing for the required 3 toot sideyard setback. .., ~.J- . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 Mr. Herbst is seeking a variance to allow a two (2) foot reduction in the width of the sideyard setback for his driveway as he would like to preserve the two large maple trees on the driveway side of his house. By reducing the sideyard setback for his driveway to one foot, Mr. Herbst will be able to install a paved driveway nine feet in width, one foot away from the trees and one foot from the property line. It was stated that Herbst can only pave if he removed a tree. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Richard Carlson, property owner of 531 W. Broadway, provided pictures of the property as well as some information regarding an easement which was obtained previously. Carlson stated that he is looking for a clarification, as well as a contradictory statement on this agenda, where it stated that both parties decided on the discontinuing of the driveway. He did not decide to discontinue the shared driveway. Carlson stated both parties did sign an agreement that in the event of a 30 day written notice, a fence could be erected, but that this has nothing to do with the driveway. Carlson also asked Patch for clarification regarding green space noting that he had spoken to Patch previously regarding a new driveway and Patch stated that he would have to meet the 5 ft setback requirement for driveways. Carlson also listed his reasons for his desire to maintain the 5 foot green space stating that this would maintain the aesthetics along Broadway, adding that this may give public perception that if the variance is allowed and if there is a minimum of a 1 ft variance allowed, you are not going to have a green space. It was noted that Herbst would like to put in a 20 ft driveway with a split rail fence mnning down the center of it. Carlson also added that he did not believe that 5 feet of green space . . IS exceSSIve. It was also noted that there had been some pine trees removed already. Carlson stated that if the setback is adhered to, there would be ample room to the east between the house and driveway, more so than on the west. Carlson's recommendation would be to pursue continued joint use of the driveway as he feels that it has served both property owners for well over 60 years and cannot see why that can't continue. Carlson also added that he would be vvilling to accommodate a turn~around to serve both properties. Also, there is a grandfather situation which he consulted legally. and stated he was able to maintain his portion of the property along the properly line; just asking for at least the minimum of green space and if that cannot be met, that the property owner has an alternative to put the driveway on the other side of the trees to preserve the trees. It was noted that placing the driveway on either side would include the elimination of approx. 10ft of curb cut. Carlson also noted that there are several shared driveway situations in Monticello and he felt that if this variance is allowed. then possibly those properties would put up a split rail fence down the middle of a driveway and does the city want to set that precedence. . -4- . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 Jim Herbst applicant and owner of 519 W. Broadway, advised that he has always wanted to have his own driveway and had intended to do so once the property was sold by the original owners. He also stated he did not agree with putting the driveway on the east side. Again he states that he wants a 2 ft variance to get away from the trees. He also advised that he has been in touch with Carlson all along working with him to try to save them both money. He also advised that he was told by his attorney that he could indeed put up a fence where he is proposing. The public hearing was closed. It was clarified that the current shared driveway is on both properties. Dragsten asked if Herbst was to get his own driveway, would there be anything to prevent him from also putting up a fence and Herbst stated that it just simply states that who ever puts up the fence has to put it up on their own property. Carlson added that the property lines do not run perpendicular to Broadway so there is a situation where Herbst has less property at the front than at the rear, and vice versa with Carlson's propcrty. Dragsten also asked Herbst why he did not want to put the driveway next to his house and Herbst stated that there is a sidewalk there currently. It was advised that the distance between Herbst' house and the property line was approx. 25 ft, with trees in between. Dragsten also asked if Herbst was planning to hard surface his driveway and if so, there would need to be 3 ft of green space, would have to be put next to the house, and the driveway would then be 9 ft wide. . Smith asked Carlson ifhe was sure he would want the neighbors car driving in and out right in front of the front porch and Carlson stated it was probably not ideal, but the driveway is there and has been for a very long time. Clint Herbst, Council Liaison, felt that possibly the planning commission was getting ofT track and the real issue is that there is a fence going up on the property line and can the applicant get a 2 ft variance. Frie clarified that the application is indeed for the driveway, not the fence. Smith asked what the applicant felt was the problem with a shared driveway and Mr. Herbst explained that this has been an issue for many years but that they had decided years ago that they would wait until the property was sold by their neighbor before putting in their own driveway. He stated he will not take out any trees, but will put in gravel ifhe has to if the variance is denied. . Chair Frie address both Herbst and Carlson advising that the main ingredient for providing a variance is finding a hardship and he cannot find a hardship in this case. Herbst did state that he was told by Patch that the preserving of trees may be found a hardship in this case. Frie also pointed out that he saw three potential options. one being granting of a variance: second is to put in a lOft driveway with a straight shot to the garage 'vvith a turnaround: and the yu option is to expand to a 12 ft driveway with a turnaround and leave the approach as it is. They then discussed the second option again and Herbst stated there is going to be a fence put up regardless of the outcome of the meeting. It was also noted that Carlson will have the same amount of space. Richard -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 clarified that the fence w-ould be in the driveway, not the grass area. Frie did question Patch as to justifying a hardship in this case and Patch stated there may not be a hardship, but preserving trees is in our code and that could be used as an argument. Grittman stated that in looking at a variance, the hardship is in putting the property to a reasonable use and if defining that as for the owners to have individual drives, would that be what the City intends. Also stated that if the City doesn't feel that separate driveways is a reasonable use, then what is the hardship. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The commissioners discussed that having separate driveways may be a desirable option, also that possibly moving the Herbst driveway east of the trees would work, although Herbst did not like that option. It was stated that the Carlson driveway would end up next to his house as well; they were in favor of preserving trees and green space, and perhaps the Herbst driveway would line up better with his garage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DRIVEWAYS AS NO HARDSHIP COULD BE DEMONSTRATED. Motion carried with Roy Popilek abstaining due to his arriving after this item had been in discussion and Richard Carlson abstaining due to a contlict of interest. 8. Consideration for a variance allowing the construction of an accessorv structure in the front yard. Applicant: Daniel Kellas Fred Patch. Building Official, advised that Daniel Kellas applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 26 by 28 foot detached garage in the front yard area which is contradictory to the zoning ordinance which states; "3-1{D}(2) No accessory buildillg shall be erected or located withill allY required yard other thall the rear yard." StatT feels that the ordinance was written with the purpose of preventing garages from being placed in front of homes. Staff does not feel that it was the ordinances intention to deny such a request as this, where the applicants lot is unusually large and the principal structure is set back at such a great distance. In this particular case, the applicant does not meet the requirements. however staff feels the uniqueness of the neighborhood (unusually large lots, sizeable front yard setbacks) and the fact that the request for the variance is not contrary with the intent of the Zoning Code should be taken into consideration. Fred Patch pointed out additional reasons \vhy the request cornplies with the intent of the ordinance such as the construction of the garage will bring the property more into conformance with the development standards of the City: The structure is in keeping with -6- . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/0 I the character of the neighborhood; the accessory structure will meet the front yard and side yard setbacks; the accessory structure is set to the side and does not interfere with sight-lines on either side of structure and the accessory structure will not impair property values. There was discussion by the members regarding previous structure that has since been removed, configuration of the house that may prohibit attached garage. Dan Kellas, applicant, stated that there had previously been a shed in that location that has been removed due to aesthetics. He also stated that the location of the proposed garage conforms with the U-shaped driveway which connects straight to the existing driveway. Kellas stated that his house sits back at least 125 ft from the road, this is an older addition, his is a one acre lot, there are no neighbors to the west, Montissippi Park is to the North. Kellas also described the neighborhood as to where houses and garages currently sit, and stated the construction will conform with all of the other buildings. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. . Popilek stated he did look at the property and he does see this as a good conforming use with the way things are currently situated there. Dragsten asked Kellas if there was a reason why it could not be put back further or attached to the house. Kellas stated that one reason is the driveway and access to the existing driveway which loops; couldn't use the existing pad as the previous structure was too small, and this was more economical to do it this way. Kellas also added that aligning it to the house would make it appear to be one long structure and not as appealing. This also gives better access to the back yard. The members and Kellas also discussed some old septic tanks located alongside the structure and what should be done with them, which Patch advised on. Chair Frie discussed the number of requests for variances on the agenda and asked if there were some rationale to support these issues, could the Planning Commission, in their finding of facts regarding front yard structures. find these justifiable requests. Grittman stated the need to determine reasonable use of the property. Herbst advised of a residence along River street that was previously used as a finding of fact for other requests. Richard Carlson felt because of the uniqueness of the property. that they should allow the encroachment. He does not however. feel there is a hardship. In regard to the septic situation. as far as a liability, he advised that the owner should have them properly tilled and covered. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY DICK FRIE -fa APPROVE llIE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FACT TlIAT IT IS A UNIQUE . -7- . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/01 SITUATION THAT COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. There was further discussion by Rod Dragsten to add language to the motion stating that the garage be no further forward than the existing house to the west of the applicants property. Mr. Kellas added that the structure would not be in front of the neighbor's but in fact would be a few feet back. THEREFORE, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO AMEND THE MOTION, AS STATED. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of a request for a variance from the 10 foot side yard setback rellUirement within the R-1 Zoning District to allow the construction of a deck. Applicant: Shawn Ball. Fred Patch, Building Official, advised that the applicant who resides at 4663 Pebblebrook Drive has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 23 by 15 foot deck. This deck would extend 4 feet over the 10 foot side yard setback allotted in the R- 1 district, which would leave 6 feet from the deck to the property line. . Patch advised that there appears to be other options for the applicant, one of which is constructing a 23 by 11 foot deck, which would meet the setback requirements. With the availability of other options, the requirement that the city find a hardship is a difficult one to meet. A variance in this case, based on the materials presented, does not appear to be justifIed by the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's were not receptive to 23 by 11 foot deck stating they felt it wasn't enough room with the size of their family and once putting out patio furniture, etc. Clint Herbst asked if we did previously reduce to 5 ft setbacks for decks and Patch stated that it was only in the downtown district. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Ball advised further their reasoning for wanting the variance stating there is a window in the back of thc house that is level with the ground and they would like to not have that covered up, also noting the deck would be 4 ft away from the corner. They would also have to move a large play structure if they were not allowed the variance. Mrs. Ball also advised that the neighbors have a vinyl fence directly on their property line and was wondering if that was allovved. Frie advised the zoning ordinance regarding fences. Ball also stated there are no windows on the neighbors house so that would not be an issue in constructing the deck. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten advised the applicant that side yard . -8- . Planning Commission Mjnlltes~ 06/05/01 setbacks are there for a reason and also stated that if the applicant were to sell this property at some time in the future, the next owner could put in a 3 season porch, enclosing the deck and that this would create a problem. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE AVAILABLE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK THAT WOULD MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of an animal hospital in the 8-3 Zoning; District. Applicant: Monticello-Bi!! Lake Pet Hospital. Steve Grittman, City Planner, advised that Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of their facility at 1260 Cedar Street. The expansion will accommodate new reception, waiting and examination rooms, and a remodeling of the existing facility. The project will include extensive exterior building improvements as well, consisting primarily of burnished block and stucco. . The site plan illustrates 29 parking spaces, in compliance with Ordinance requirements. All other dimensional requirements of the B-3 District are met, with one exception. The section which establishes Animal Hospitals as Conditional Uses in the B-3 District requires that side yard setbacks are to be increased from the typical 10 foot requirement in the B-3 District to a minimum of 20 feet. The south boundary line constitutes a side lot line, from which the building expansion would be set back about 12 feet at its closest point. The existing building is set back just 10 feet from the line, an existing non- conforming condition. To avoid tabling the proposal to consider a side yard setback variance, the applicant should revise the plans so that the expansion meets the 20 toot requirement. It should be noted that the requisite hardship to approve a variance request would likely be difficult to find, since reasonable use of the property can be made without the variance. The members discussed an amendmcnt to the code relating to Pet Hospitals but it was stated that a public hearing had not been noticed at this time. It was advised that this could be done prior to the council meeting of June 25 if needed. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Joel Erickson, o\vner/applicant at 1260 Cedar St., stated the plans that were submitted to Patch were the initial plans, but as he reviewed the statf report he has revised and the setback in question is now actually at 20 to 30 fL although he does question why a veterinarian clinic \vould be treated differently. Ericksun added that they may, at sume time in the future. want to expand their building . -9- . Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/0 I even more and the setbacks would then be an issue. Erickson stated they had already decided to scale back prior to hearing of the required setbacks for their building, but again stated that after seeing being advised of this stipulation, he wanted to discuss this matter. Richard Carlson noted that the site plan shows a fenced in area basically over the property line and Erickson stated it is an existing fence which has been there for approx. 8 years and it does run full length near the property line. Grittman advised it meets code and Erickson added that when they installed it staff did not question it nor were the setback requirements for a vet clinic discussed. It was stated that staffis supportive of this expansion and regarding the setback stipulation, the planning commission may consider at another time, an amendment to the code. Also noted was that another option regarding the setbacks is a variance, but hardship would be difficult to establish. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SITE COMPLIES WITH THE B-3 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUL Y 3RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ADDRESS THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR VETERINARIAN CLINICS IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. I I. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front 'lard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage. Applicant: Linda Obrvcki. Fred Patch. Building Official, advised that the new property owner of the residence located at 401 Front Street is requesting a twenty five (25) foot variance from the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback and from the requirement that all detached accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard. The lot where the residence is located was originally created from the vacation of that portion of Front Street lying 165.76 feet west of Linn Street. The vacated street was combined with a remnant ''ledge of land that formed a portion of formerly Block 62. Original Plat. The hOllse \\as built toward the front of the IOI and oriented to take . -10- Planning Commission Minutes- 06/05/0 I . advantage of the view of the river. The location of the proposed detached garage is in the front yard and would likely cause vehicles to be parked in the boulevard. It would sit far forward of the adjoining residence to the south and be the predominant feature at the corner of Linn Street and Front Street. Several alternate locations are possible however, after visiting the property it appears that the most practical alternative is to attach a 16 foot by 24 foot garage onto the east end of the existing house. A single stall garage in that location will provide for a front yard setback of approximately 20 feet and will not intensify the encroachment into the 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level mark of the river. In that location the garage would be in line with the house, appear to belong in the neighborhood, and preserve all of the trees on the lot. Setbacks in the area suggested are 50 feet from OHW of the river, 15 feet from top of bluft~ 30 feet from front/east property line. A variance would still be required as the garage would be constructed within the front setback area and into the 50 foot setback area from the ordinary high water level mark of the river. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Linda Obrycki, applicant. advised that she chose to place the garage in this location as the front of the house is actually toward the River. There is currently a tarred area (approx. 50 ft) and curbing near the road and a wooded area sits on the other side. Obrycki stated her concern with an attached garage is that there is erosion occurring in front of the property by the Rive. She did state however, that if she had to move the garage up further she feels it would not block any view, stating the houses above hers are higher and the garage would not block anything more than what the house blocks. Orbrycki was also concerned that if she had to put in footings it may cause problems with the river bluff. Other options were also discussed which Obrycki had researched, although she did have concerns with them. She added that she will also remove the existing shed. Bev Abrahamson, I Linn Street. adjacent to 401 Front St, stated her concern with the variance is that she feels the houses are already very close together with only approx. 18 ft between them. She added that she was in favor of the applicant wanting a garage and that she only wanted clarification as to where the garage was proposed to be placed. Chair Frie suggested that possibly this item be tabled and let the applicant work directly with stafT on her options. It "vas asked if the applicant could reduce the size of the proposed garage to 20 ft versus 24 ft and it was discussed that this could be looked at. Fred Patch clarified the setbacks for the water mark and bluff lines and added that he had been advised by both the Public Works Director and the City Engineer that there will be a sanitary sewer reconstruction project in this area soon, and asked that the Planning Commission not recommend moving the garage any closer to the road than what is . -11- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 suggested in the staff report. C lint Herbst stated he did not feci it was right to limit this applicant due to the City's need to work on the sanitary sewer reconstmction. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion that this is a unique property and that the Planning Commission had also previously allowed something similar for another homeowner in that neighborhood. The members did feel, however, that the garage should be attached but that it could be wider. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ALLOW A TEN (10) FOOT REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW A TEN (10) FOOT REDUCTION FROM THE FIFTY FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RIVER OHW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 401 LINN STREET. Motion died for lack ofa second. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ALLOW A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE RESIDENCE AT 401 LINN STREET. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission advised staff to investigate the sanitary sewer reconstmction situation for clarification and advise them at the July meeting. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front yard setback to allow constmction of a 24' x 40' detached i!arai!e. Applicant Chad Latvaaho. F red Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report. The owner of the residence located at 9 Riverside Circle, desires to construct a twenty four by forty foot (960 square foot) detached accessory building between Otter Creek and his driveway, in the front yard area of his property. In order for him to be able to do this, he is requesting a variance from the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback, and a variance from the requirement that all detached accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard. In addition to the variances, and only if the variances are allowed by the Planning Commission, Mr. Latvaaho must apply for a conditional use permit to exceed the 1,200 square foot maximum allowable area f()r garage and accessory building area. If the new accessory building is allowed, the total garage and accessory building area on this property will be approximately 2.256 square feet. 1.056 square feet in excess of the maximum allovved as a permitted Lise. The lot vvhere Mr. Latvaaho's residence is located is at the end of the cul-de-sac and lies -1:> . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 along the sensitive environmental area on the north shore of Otter Creek as it flows into the Mississippi River. The property lies in the shoreland overlay district and is regulated by Chapter 27, Regulating the Management of the Mississippi Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System and the Shoreland Areas of the City of Monticello. While the location for the proposed accessory structure will support the size of the building, it would be in a location that is relatively remote from the principal residence of Mr. Latvaaho. Because the accessory structure would be in front of and along side of several adjacent residences, the primary aesthetic impact is against the neighboring properties. The front yard view from the residences to the north would be directly at the overhead garage doors. The residence to the west would view the side of the accessory structure rather than the vegetation along Otter Creek. The area where the accessory structure could be built falls outside of the 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark elevation for Otter Creek; however, the area is filled with trees and natural vegetation that would have to be removed to allow for the building. . If an accessory structure is to be built in the area desired by the applicant, the Planning Commission would have to allow a front yard setback variance of approximately 10 feet, and a variance from the requirement that accessory structures must be located in the rear yard. Thereafter, the applicant may apply for a conditional use permit for in excess of 1,200 square feet of garage and accessory structure. The impact of the structure on vegetation in the shoreland district may be considered at that time. The shape and situation of the property, the setbacks from the ordinary high water mark elevation for Otter Creek and the River, and the drainage easements on most of the lot area south of the residence do not appear to allow for a practical situation for the type of structure desired by the applicant. Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Chad Latvaaho, applicant, stated the proposed structure would be turned at an angle and he could reduce the size somewhat if necessary. He also stated that he believed putting the structure there is a better alternative than having his stuff sitting around in view. Latvaaho also stated he would have to remove only 3 small trees and that he cannot put another structure any closer to his home. Chair Frie asked the applicant why a 1200 sq ft building would not be large enough, and also stated there are environmentally sensitive issues and neighborhood concerns as well. Latvaaho did state he had hear from other neighbors stating they disapprove, but he added that he would put up a very quality structure. As far as the larger building, he stated he does need more space as he has a lot of things to put in it. Frie advised that the Planning Commission did increase to the size of accessory structures allowable to 1200 sq. ft. several months ago, adding that the applicant's request is for quite a bit more. . -]3- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 Jenny Klein, 1133 W. River St., whose home is directly across from Latvaaho's garage location stated personally that this location would block her view as she currently looks out into a cul-de-sac. It was advised that the standard is set for the residential area with houses in the front and a detached structure in front doesn't seem to fit. Rachel Gilard, 4 Riverside Circle whose property is southwest of Latvaaho's, stated they are worried about the structure having a negative impact on the neighborhood as well as their concern for the removal of trees. She did state however, that she understands the need for a building but again stated that this structure would affect the view of the neighbors property, as well as the view of the river. Gilard also provided a letter from another neighbor, Dennis Anderson who resides at 5 Riverside Circle and could not attend the public hearing, stating his opposition to this variance as well. Frie asked the Gilard's if they would rather view the boats, snowmobiles, etc. than having these items out of view in a structure. Gilard stated that they do not notice them and they are not permanent as they are being moved. unlike the proposed building. She also advised that Mr. Latvaaho had just moved in. . Walter M., resident at 3 Riverside Circle, stated that his house us across and up the hill from the applicant's and although the structure would not directly affect him he is concerned for the overall feel of the neighborhood, adding that this is a very heavily wooded, private neighborhood. He added that he is supportive of the neighbors and that the proposed structure would be out of sight of the applicant's hOLlse. it would be obstructing the view of the neighbors. Mr. Latvhaao again stated that he understands his neighbor's concerns and was trying to be neighborly. Latvhaao added that he could just put up a fence or tarp around his things instead or possibly a privacy fence on his property. The public hearing was closed. Popilek stated there is already a large 3-stall garage and that he would be concerned with aesthetics as well, noting his opposition to the applicant's request. Dragsten stated that the person owning this property has the right to do what he wants to do with his property in following the city's ordinances, but also stated that an accessory structure cannot exceed 1.200 sq ft. Carlson stated that the reality is that this structure \vould either be in the front of or in the rear of someone's property and his concern is for the neighbors as \vell. Chair Frie added that with all the requests for variances to front yard setbacks this evening, there must be something amiss and he would like this to be addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting. . -14- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I Patch advised that the applicant should not go away feeling that he can remove trees as there is the Wild & Scenic area. The applicant can only remove trees to build a new structure and advised that the applicant cannot put up a temporary storage. Jeff O'Neill clarified that the creek does lie within that district as well, although the applicant felt otherwise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: AESTHETIC CONSIDERA nON FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE AREA ALONG OTTER CREEK, AND THAT REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT BEING DENIED. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for two. 2 unit townhouses. Applicant: RA Associates. Steve Grittman, City Planner, advised that Rick Anderson has requested Development Stage PUD approval for his proposed project at Maple Street and West Broadway. This project was previously approved as a Concept Stage PUD, although there was some significant discussion on the density issue, since the project needed a variance from the strict lot area per unit requirements, based on the type of unit being proposed. However, the four units were approved, with the understanding that the unit style would better tit into the character of the neighborhood, and that the project design would be sensitive to both the existing development and the exposure to Broadway. The applicant's plans illustrate an orientation toward Broadway for the corner unit, with doorways facing that direction. The garage orientation is toward Maple Street, but as noted in the Concept Plan report, the driveway combination allows for less pavement and landscaping that de-emphasizes the garage component. The landscape plan illustrates a site treatment that should help to create a "courtyard" feel in the driveway area. Planning staff has two recommended additions to enhance the plan and help to justify the use of PUD in this case. The tirst would be to further emphasize the Broadway orientation of the corner unit by directing a short segment of sidewalk to Broadway from the front door. The proposed landscaping could then border this walkway, instead of interfering with the front door view of the building. The second suggestion would be to install a small open fence along the ti'ont prope11y line, between the two driveways. This visual separator would also help to de-emphasize the view of the driveways and garage doors. The Planning Commission were supportive of this project, although they did state they -15- . . . 14. Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 were still not comfortable with the density. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUO FOR MAPLE STREET TOWNHOMES, WITH CONDITIONS RELATED TO SIDEW ALK PLACEMENT AND FENCING DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. Motion carried unanimously. Roy Popilek would like the record to reflect his concern with the density as well. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 2.500 square foot restaurant in a shop pin!! center in the CCD zoning district. Applicant: Silver Creek Development. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a restaurant in the Town Center shopping center, a parcel zoned CCD between Walnut Street and Highway 25. A previous Conditional Use Permit approval was granted to the shopping center for a parking space deficit based on an anticipated retail use of the building. Restaurants have significantly increased parking demand, and as such, would require the City to grant a new permit for a greater deficit. Restaurants are, otherwise, permitted uses in the CCO zoning district, and as policy, would be supported by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The issue in this case is parking supply and demand. The approvals were given to the original project with an understanding that the shopping center north of the central driveway (5 Y2 Street) would be 29 parking spaces short of the total demand (65 estimated required, and 36 supplied). The liquor store lot would be developed with an additional 3,000 square feet of space, with a portion of its 41 space parking demand to be accommodated by both the liquor store parking lot and Walnut Street parking. The original permit was supportcd on the basis that under a joint parking arrangement, the actual parking demand for the site would be less than that stated in the ordinance. Some of the overf10w could be accommodated by allowing retai I access to the liquor store parking lot, and other parking could be located in the Walnut Street arca (displacing current Community Center parking to the underutilized west parking lot). The City had also negotiated a rcquirement for the shopping center developer to add overf1ow parking on the north side of the railroad tracks if demand dictated. Finally. the City included a fee for the parking deficit in its price negotiation on the property. Converting 2,500 square feet from retail to restaurant would result in an increast::d -16- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 parking demand for that portion of the building alone from 11 parking spaces to 38. This would increase the deficit on the north side of the site from 29 spaces to 56 spaces (not including the additional retail demand on the liquor store half of the block). .TeffO'Neill advised that staff had directed potential restaurants to check with Towne Centre to possibly be an allowable use in that space. Grittman added that the CCD does encourage restaurants in this district. Planning staff has been supportive of cross-parking arrangements that reduce the amount of space devoted to parking in the CCD area. This is based on research indicating that mixed use projects with cross-parking activity can reduce actual parking demand to as little as 60% of the demand when calculated on a building by building basis. For the block in question, a typical requirement of approximately 150 spaces could be reduced to as little as 90 spaces, particularly when there is a reliable overflow supply. . There are some limits to this site, however. The design of the block eliminates on-street parking on Highway 25, and severely restricts it along 6th Street (south of the block). Walnut Street's supply has already been factored in, and the overflow to the north is separated from the block by the railroad. Complicating the issue is the fact that the liquor store relies on a significant level of boat/trailer traffic that utilizes parking spaces at twice the typical rate during peak times. As a result, adding an additional demand of approximately 27 spaces to this block would appear to be difficult to handle without some other accommodation. There would be two options to consider that would minimize the impacts of this request - increasing supply, or reducing demand. To reduce demand, the restaurant size could be limited, or the retail expansion on the liquor store building could be reduced in size. To increase supply, the applicant could attempt to add parking in proximity to this site. Improvements to 6th Street would be one possibility, although this may impact the business parking in that area. Other improvements have recently been made that assumed 6th Street parking improvements would not be necessary. Acquisition ofpublic parking easements over the existing private parking lots south of 6th Street may be another option to pursue. O'Neill asked Grittman about parking being built on the other side of the railroad tracks as well as utilizing the library parking, asking if this could be utilized or would it be too far: would the library need the parking at some point in the future. Grittman states that it is a bit inconvenient in that it is more toward the back side of the retail space, and also added that we may have already accounted for these spaces in previous discussions. holding out as potential for overflow. O'Neill asked that perhaps after 6 months of the site being up and running, parking could then be determined. Herbst added that parking . -17- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 behind the center could be utilized for employees, not for users. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Greg Moody, Spectra Building, stated they have had numerous requests for restaurants in this space and concur with the city and the CCD that restaurant's are a good use in this area. Moody added that he would also like to explore parking to the north of the railroad tracks more. He also stated that he did count approx 40 stalls that could be utilized, which would make a deficient of 19. . The public hearing was closed. Robbie Smith stated that he likes the concepts, the issue is parking and he feels the city needs to look at the parking situation further. O'Neill advised that city council approved head-in parking at the Locust Street retail shops which will alleviate some of the parking deficiency there. Frie stated he feels that the Planning Commission should not be relaxed with any further parking requirements. Frie asked about the options in the staff report and if the applicant was familiar with them. Mr. Moody was concerned if this meant they are decreasing square footage for increased parking. Moody added that people want to see a place that is busy, and that they may have to walk which most people are comfortable with. O'Neill added that the problem at China ButTet is not a problem with code as the city is trying to increase on-street parking. Herbst also added that when there is a restaurant people are willing to walk, more so than walking to a retail spot. Access from the back is also an option. Wanda Kraemer, Towne Centre, added that the sidewalks would have awnings, enclosed area and it would not be like parking in the back of a building. Richard Carlson stated his extreme opposition to parking on 6th Street and he was not excited about the possibility of using the library parking lot, wants stafTto respond to "acquisition of parking lot easements. . . ". Grittman stated that this would be the of1lce building parking lot stating there seems to be ample parking there as well and this would be another option if an owner was willing to work with them or willing to sell. Dragsten added that he feels this strip mall is nice, although there stilI seems to be some problems with parking. He stated this site becomes a more intense use with the liquor store being located there as well. Popilek stated he is concerned also with parking but excited about the possibility of another restaurant. O'Neill again advised that staff has not completed a detailed analysis of this parking area in regard to the possible Library expansion. O'Neill asked if possibly the commission and the applicant would like to continue to one morc Planning Commission cycle to determine the parking. Herbst states it may be in the best interest of the developer to table and let staff do an overview of the parking. having the applicant call for a special meeting in two weeks: feels there are good uses betw"een the Community Center & Towne Center. Wanda Kraemer advised that part of the development agreement includes the parking spaces. Carlson asked about liquor store parking peak times and how it . -I s- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I coincides with a restaurant's peak parking time and Grittman advised that they would most likely be ditTerent times. Chair Frie asked if2 weeks was acceptable to the applicant and they stated it would be. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CUP, PENDING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PARKING, AND TENTATIVELY SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/25/01 AT 6 PM, PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Consideration of a request to amend the zoning ordinance to al10w a second freestanding siQn on certain properties in the B-3, Highwav Business District. Applicant: Monticello Dodlle. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staffreport stating Monticello Dodge is seeking approval of an amendment to the text of the sign regulations that would allow the City to approve a second freestanding sign on certain property. The request is made due a concern that because of the large size of this site, and the two primary exposures (Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road), one ti-eestanding sign along the freeway would not be adequate to direct customers to the site from Chelsea Road. The rationale behind the request is based on the need to communicate with two types of traffic (freeway and street), and that one sign is inadequate to do both jobs on large sites. If such an allowance is to be made, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to limit the proliferation of signs where they are not "needed" to accommodate the concerns raised by the applicant: 1. ') .... Only B-3 property would be eligible. Only property that fronts both on the freeway and on a second major road (collector or higher status) The site must be at least two acres in size. and the signs should be no closer than 300 feet apart. The sign fronting on the access road should be of monument style design. including limits of 10 feet in height and sixty square feet in area. The sign fronting on the treeway should conform to the requirements of the ordinance regulating freestanding signs (32 feet in height. 200 square feet in area). Second sign allowance is applied to individually described parcels. not business occupants. and does not apply to sites seeing development flexibility allowances under PUD provisions. Both signs must meet all other standards of the sign regulations. including size and setbacks. ., J. 4. 5. 6. 7. -19- . Plann ing COIl1Il1 ission Minutes - 06/05/0 I Please note that the Dealership has ordered a pylon sign (22' high) for Chelsea Road that meets current standards. Unfortunately, this sign will not be useable without modifications under the proposed amendment. An amendment with these provisions would allow a second freestanding sign to a limited number of properties in addition to Monticello Dodge. A sophisticated inventory was not conducted, however, Gould's Chevrolet would be an eligible site, and Hoglund Bus may be another on the south side of the freeway. Other sites are likely to be too small, or already subject to PUD allowances. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bill Rambow, Denny Hecker Dodge, stated it was their understanding when they made the application they were applying for additional signage. Mr. Olson, Voo Doo signs, stated they had, in deed applied for a different sign and provided the necessary information. He did state that they did receive the pem1it for the sign on the east side, the other two are the ones they are requesting, the other free standing sign is 35 ft high. Jeff O'Neill added that the sign system being proposed is not under a PUD, they have met the code, and the sign system is far less intensive than the Dave Peterson Ford sign system. O'Neill added that this is not an extreme sign system and the situation is that they applied for a pylon sign on Chelsea Road, meeting all requirements, and the permit has been issued for that sign. This ordinance amendment is now in process so that when the applicant proceeds with the freeway sign, even though it meets current code, the sign system would not be in compliance with the amended code which states that it is to be a monument sign on Chelsea Rd. O'Neill also stated that the applicant would have to apply for a variance if this ordinance amendment is approved. Grittman advised the Planning Commission that the City does not have a process to approve a second free standing sign at this time and therefore the amendment request. Mr. Rambow states that they need signage for 1-94 & Chelsea Rd and that it needs to be done tastefully. Grittman advised that if the Planning Commission feels what the applicant is proposing is acceptable to them, the ordinance amendment should be approved, adding that City stafJ chose monument signs for Chelsea Rd from an aesthetic standpoint. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Fred Patch added that the Planning Commission needs to look at who would be putting in these signs such as Gould's and Hoglund's, and that they would be tastefully done. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS ^LLOWING A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN ON CERTAIN . -20- . . . R Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I PROPERTY IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. Motion carried 3 to 2 with Rod Dragsten and Richard Carlson voting in opposition. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a multiple familv structure with ground floor residential units in the CCD District. Applicant: Silver Creek Develooment. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising that Silver Creek Development is requesting a new Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 35 unit multiple family apartment building on a 1.7 acre parcel along East 7th Street. The parcel has multiple family residential uses on both sides, and abuts a commercial parking lot to the rear (north). Grittman provided the multiple family building densities in this district stating that a mix of unit types would result in a maximum density between 24 and 33 units. The site plan layout was also provided which included a stormwater pond in the northwest comer of the site, along with a "tot lot" north of the apartment building. An enclosed refuse room adjoins one of the garage buildings. The existing site conditions, based on the survey submitted with the application, indicates a heavily wooded area in the northeast corner of the site. The north one third of the property is sloped dramatically down to the north. To accommodate the grade, the applicant proposes a retaining wall along the north boundary which would support the parking lot and the garage buildings. Staff suggested an alternative site plan that relocates the elements of the project, based on a slightly downsized apartment building that would comply with the density allowances (assuming a mix of one and two bedroom units). This building would be placed along the east boundary, and when shortened up to eliminate a few units, would save most of the trees in the northeast corner, particularly when combined with the retaining wall. The parking is relocated as welL and the garage buildings are combined to break up the long, continuous wall created by the applicant's layout. The same number (24) of garage spaces are preserved, although surface parking is reduced to meet the 2 space per unit requirement. The tot lot is also retained at the same size. However, the revision allows it to be moved south, away trom the slope. Less retaining wall would appear to be required, and more green space would be preserved. Finally, this site would lend itself to a basement parking garage. The slope would accommodate a garage entrance on the north side of the building, with more than one underground space per unit. Such a design would preserve even more green space by eliminating some of the surface parking needs. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider this concept. -21- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Greg Moody, Spectra Building Group, addressed the Commission stating their concern with some of the staff recommendations, as well as stating the amenities such as that the apartments are a mixed use development with 1, 2, and 3 units, upscale with fireplaces, community room on the main level, decks (screened), the units are somewhat larger, and the exterior will have brick on the lower portion which blends well in the area. This is also a full security building. Moody also added that the current market shows that a third of people arc empty nesters, young professionals, married couples with one child, and this is the type of market they are trying to achieve. Moody also advised that they could sketch a pathway from Th Street which would tie into the future intent of the City with a pathway on the railroad right-of- way, tying into the city's trial system. Moody also advised the position of the units on the site would be wall to wall, stacked back to back, and this set up would lend a better view and they do feel they have the building in a position they like. Underground garages are not feasible in this area. They also advised that they would like approval of the concept as submitted and are willing to work with staff to modify somewhat as they feel the concept is good. Moody also stated they will be preserving trees but will be removing brush and adding landscaping. Again they stated they teel they can get 33 mixed units on this site. . Steve Grittman clarified that the CCO had a separate clause for density which is 9,000 sq. 1'1:. per ground floor unit, adding that it looks as though they applied the R-3 standards to get them to this range. Grittman stated that the code was designed to discourage ground floor units near commercial areas. Holly, site manager at the adjacent apartment complex, stated she preferred the applicant's site plan versus the staffs alternate plan as she felt they would much rather look at the applicant's view than directly at their building. Also noted that she frequently gets calls for market rate apartments and sees there is a great demand in this area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Grittman advised that the CCD has a clause stating density could be increased if there were structured or underground parking available. intended to mean some kind of attached parking which typically is underground. They also discussed the previous townhome project proposed. but it was stated by the applicant that the numbers didn"t work. O'Neill advised also that the DAT looked at this concept and they recommended approval. Grittman stated that if the building was downsized it wouldn't make 3 difference on which side the unit was placed. The members questioned Grittm3n as to a way to increase the density to make this plan work and he stated they could zone it a PUD as they did with the previous Maple Street application. Moody also stated that they do have more acreage available that was not figured into this . " . . . .l.L Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 plan. which would increase the density allowed. Grittman stated that the Planning Commission may want to approve this concept plan with the condition that they would work with staff to meet the density. It was noted that staff and applicant will review new information regarding the amount of acreage being 1.9 acres versus the previously stated 1. 7 acres. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. REDUCING THE UNIT COUNT DENSITY TO MEET ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a request for development stage Planned Unit Development allowing multiple structures on an industrial site. Applicant: Blue Chip Development. Steve Grittman. City Planner, provided the stafl report. Previous discussions with the applicants had raised an issue of the location of the loading docks to the south, and whether it would be possible to reorient the buildings to move the docks to an area that would be less exposed to the residential properties to the south. The applicant's architect supplied two optional layouts showing the buildings turned ninety degrees and both of these drawings are intended to demonstrate that even with redesigned buildings, the space is too narrow to accommodate the truck turning movements on the site. Planning stafl believes that the options are reasonably representative, and would agree that the loading can not be reoriented as statI had hoped. The applicant has relocated the central driveway, and the preliminary floor plans illustrate compliance with expected parking demand on the site. Neither of the buildings propose outdoor storage, and the lighting plan appears to show that there will be almost no spillover light onto the residential property. The approval should specify that there will be no yard lights on the south sides of the building, and that wall lights will be shielded to avoid direct glare. With regard to the landscape plan, the applicant proposes a bufferyard planting in a rear yard of just over 20 feet in depth, in compliance with the requirements of the district adjacent to vacant property. The adjoining residential property is being developed by Eagle Crest. and will also include bufferyard plantings in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. However. the requirements for this district are at least 80 "plant units" per 100 feet of property. This would require a total of 344 plant units along the bulTeryard area. "rhe proposed planting includes 12 evergreen trees at 15 plant units each, and 11 deciduous trees at 10 plant units each, for a total of 290 plant units. The addition of a berm. an opaque fence, or more evergreen plant material would bring the but1eryard into compliance. Because this is a PUD, staff \vould recommend a knce to augment the ,~ -__1- Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I . plantings as the most effective screen. as well as increasing security. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Formato, resident at 4935 Stoneridge Lane which is the townhome development adjacent to the pond, across from the proposed development, advised that he was concerned about the noise and lighting, stating that there is a lighting problem already in that area, very lit up. He also added that he was at the meeting representing the other residents of the townhome project. He feels that because the business to the north of their development has not complied with City ordinance. that possibly this new development would not comply either. He did also stated, however, that he has never asked City staff to look into that business, JME, not meeting the ordinance requirements. O'Neill advised that there is a formal letter that has been issued and the matter has been turned over to the City Attorney. Another resident on Stoneridge Lane stated his same concerns, adding that he would like the applicant to provide a buffer as well. Chair Frie stated the need to stay on top of enforcing that these conditions are met. . Gene Branstrom, architect for Blue Chip, advised that they did supply the City with a lighting type, which is actually very little. stating that lighting would not go beyond the property line. As far as the concerns with the noise, these would be small users with not much activity from that side of the building. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Roy Popilek stated that he believes this neighborhood has these concerns due to the violations by the neighboring JME business, and he advised also that staff is working on resolving this matter. He also asked about the existing berm being increased as it was previously which may alleviate some of the noise and site concerns. Rod Dragsten added that the berm is important, as well as the plantings, lighting and fencing. Frie stated that we should include no outdoor storage allowed. as a condition in the motion. It was noted by stafT that the applicant has provided trash enclosures and that the lighting would be wall mounted, stating this is also addressed in the recommendations. They also have a lighting plan that shows very little spill over. Popilek asked Grittman what is a good standard height for a berm and he stated that it is regulated by space and slope. 3 to 1 slope. and may get up 3 to 4 [t in height to still be maintainable. In the space they have, it would be 3 to 4 [t. They also asked about the fence possibly being placed on top of the berm. fences can be up to 6 feet in height. Brad Barger. Blue Chip Development. stated that the berm is on the parcel to the East \vhich is one parcel over and is no\v a parking lot. Barger asked who is responsible for the bufkr and Grittman advised that each side provides hale the fence is in addition. . - 2cf- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06105/01 Grittman added that the City Engineer had concerns with this area having a utility drainage easement, the plan shows some tilL the applicant may have to modify the plans to maintain storm water in that area. The current plan shows encroachment into an important pondingldrainage area. The size of parking/building will need to be reduced slightly in order to keep the developed area in the upland area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR BLUE CHIP DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BUFFER YARD BE INTENSIFIED WITH FENCING, OR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY, AND THAT LIGHTING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMENTS IN THIS REPORT. MOTION IS ALSO CONTINGENT ON SITE PLAN MODI FICA TIONS NECESSAR Y TO COMPL Y WITH RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO THE STORM SEWER EASEMENTS ON THE SITE. There was further discussion by Roy Popilek regarding the possibility of the applicant putting an 8 ft fence on a 3 ft. berm which Grittman advised that it is certainly more directive and could be added to the motion. The commissioners stated that they would like to seen an 8 ft. opaque fence be required. Clint Herbst was concerned with who would be responsible for the cost associated with the bufferyard/screening, what portion of the cost should be borne by industrial and what portion for residential. Grittman added that going above and beyond the usual requirement is justified by allowing a PUD. CHAIR FRIE THEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THAT THERE ALSO BE THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE ALLOWED AND THE APPLICANT IS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT (8) FOOT OPAQUE FENCE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Resolution of the Citv of Monticello Planning Commission finding that the modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-28 conform to the Qcneral plans for the development and redevelopment of the citv. leffO'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, advised the Planning Commission that the resolution for adoption affirms that the Planning Commission finds that the "Plans" are consistent "'lith the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Monticello. The "Plans" in this case refer to the Plans of the CMRP No. I and TIF District 1-29, and not the site or building plans of the redeveloper, The Contract f()r Private Development bdween the HRA and the Developer states that the site and building plans shall comply with all FederaL State, and local laws and ordinances. -25- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 The Planning Commission is afTirming that the "Plan" is consistent with the general plans for development of the City and its Comp Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Review proposal for development of a mixed use residential development at Wildwood Ponds bv Fan Development. It was noted that this item was pulled from the MOAA agenda for 6/6/0 I. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised that the Planning Commission is asked to comment on a Farr Development proposal to develop a mixed use residential neighborhood at the 38 acre Ralph Hermes property. The original preliminary plat/development concept for this site prepared by the developer envisioned development of single family homes. Due to extraordinary development costs associated with this site, there is the need to increase density from approximately 2.7 units per acre to just less than 4 units per acre. Please note that 4 units per acre fall within the category of low density residential. The proposal calls for 27 single family lots, 28 detached townhomes, 38 attached townhome units and 40 units in 5 eight-plex structures. . As part of the research on this matter, Dick Frie and Steve Grittman participated in a tour of similar developments. Generally stafT supports a mixed use concept including single family and townhomes, however we are not as supportive of the proposal for eight-plex units. Last of all, stafT is working on providing the information requested regarding the city's housing mix. Mike Gail', MFRA, addressed the Planning Commission and advised that Lucinda Gardner with Farr Development, Ralph Hermes, owner of the property, and Mr. Hermes daughter & son-in-law were also present. Gail' stated their next step is to go to preliminary plat, PUD process. The property is located in the southeast corner of the City and is in MOAA district. Adjoins Wildwood Ridge and on the southern portion is Rolling Woods. There are 36 acres, exclusive of the County Rd 18 ROW with little vegetation on site and some trees. approximately 4 acres. Gair also showed the storm water movement through the site and stated they have worked with WSB to develop a storm water ponding system that works with this site. Gair stated also the water that leaves the site is going to be lifted from the site and moved west. which would react favorably to Ditch 33. but there is a cost associated with it. Gair added that there are three intersections providing access to this site. Gail' added that their concept plan shows there is enough material available to elevate the . -26- . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/01 sites which is in response to the concerns of WSB and the site includes a storm water lift station and would preserves wetlands. Gair stated he felt this development would add a significant tax base. Gair also added the mix of densities they were proposing. Chair Frie asked what the zoning would be for this site and it was stated that typically it would be zoned R-I, and as of now the guideline states low density. Also advised was that townhomes are not permitted in R-L so this would have to be addressed by a conditional use permit. Frie stated his concern with the City is running out of MOAA land, also noting a concern of the City Council for affordable, upscale housing as well. Steve Grittman stated that some townhome development could be accommodated as units per acre is how they would be determined. He added that they could have a mix that fit into the density of 4 units per acre, but would have to have some other type of zoning that would comply with the density. Frie stated his understanding is that this does not fit with the City's Comp Plan. O'Neill cautioned that when looking at the comp plan they have to look at 4 units per acre. Frie was also concerned with green space to which Lucinda Gardner stated on the single family lots this is allowed for, adding that having strictly all single family homes does not work in this area dollar-wise as the cost to develop is too great. . Roy Popilek asked what staffs concern is with eight- plexes and Grittman advised the City has had them previously and that they are not happy with them. From a stat I standpoint, they encourage some mix of units but the issue for communities is how much mix is appropriate. Rod Dragsten felt that it is somewhat of a nice plan, may be somewhat of a variation in regard to upper-scale. single family homes and eight-plexes. Lack of upper-end housing, economics a problem as well. Richard Carlson stated economics seem to be the sole reason for higher density; how about geographically. Grittman states no, need to preserve the core of the City for the higher density areas, but at same time encourages mixed housing approach. O'Neill added that economically for the City, this could be a better development. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE CONCEPT AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EIGHT-PLEXES. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Dick Frie voting in opposition. Chair Frie advised he would like claritication on Comprehensive Plan. Chair Fritc also advised staff to address the 531 W. Broadway issue at the July planning . -27- . . . 20. Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/0 I commission meeting as there was not sufficient time due to the length of this agenda. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:05 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. Recorder -28- Planning Commission Agenda - 7/03/01 . 5. Public Hearina - Consideration of an application for a Rezoninq from 1-1 to R- 2, and a revised Development Stage Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminarv Plat to allow the development of the 97 unit Montissippi Trail Townhomes located on the "Klucas" property. Applicant: Harstad Holdings. Inc. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Harstad Holdings has applied for a rezoning, CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow an 97 -unit townhome development on the "Klucas" property. The project was previously reviewed as a 92 unit development, but since that time, the applicants have acquired a 2.5 acre strip of land along the west boundary from Electro Industries and Riverside Oil. The additional land allows the project to expand to the existing tree line that divides the two land uses, and provides the project with additional till necessary to properly grade the remainder ot the site. The property is now 16.5 acres in size and is located in northwest Monticello. The property is located between 1-94 and County Highway 75 south of West River Street. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. . Land Use and Zoning The additional parcel must be rezoned from 1-1 to R-2 to accommodate the residential use. The proposed townhome land use would be consistent with the zoning for the property, and the rezoning would tit well with the land use pattern and the lay of the land. The predominate housing type is four-unit townhomes. One two-unit and five three-unit townhomes are also included. The surrounding land uses are industrial to the west, an NSP training facility to the north, a single-family residential use to the east, and Interstate 94 to the south. Density After subtracting the area ot the public right-ot-way, the parcel is approximately 16 acres in size. The proposed 97 units would result in a net density of 6.1 units per acre, slight less than the original concept. This is an appropriate density for medium density residential development. Setbacks In the R-2 District the minimum front and rear yard setback is 30 feet and the minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. The plan illustrates a minimum setback of 30 teet from all property boundaries; therefore, the setbacks trom property boundaries are compliant. The proposed minimum setbacks within the property are listed below: . Front yard (garage to curbline) Corner lot side yard adjacent to drive Rear yard setback Minimum distance between buildings Proposed 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 22 feet . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 7/03/01 Buffer Yard A buffer yard is required along the western boundary of the site between the proposed residential land use and the existing industrial use. A residential use next to an industrial use is considered a severe type of conflict that requires a minimum building setback of 50 feet, a minimum landscape yard of 40 feet, and a minimum of 160 plant units per 100 feet of property line. A thick band of evergreen trees already exists on the industrial property along the property line; therefore the residential development is required to install half the width and intensity of the required buffer yard. The proposed building setback is 30 feet and the width of the landscape scre,ening is 20 feet. The density of planting is high with 147 trees along the west boundary or 156.5 plant units per 100 feet. The proposed buffer yard is adequate given the existing screening on the industrial site. Building Design and Spacing A general standard for building spacing is that a building should be no closer to another building than half the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. The proposed height of the buildings is 24 feet and the minimum proposed building separation is 22 feet. This separation should meet the standards. One advantage of the reduced density is an increase in driveway spacing. Previous plans had shown a few adjoining driveways with little space between curb openings. Access and Street Design. The property gains access from Marvin Elwood Road in the northeast corner of the property. A cul-de-sac and road extension to Prairie Road is also planned at the south end of the site to provide a second access. The site plan shows the road being extended to the approximate existing end of Prairie Road. Residents of the proposed development will likely use the north access onto Marvin Elwood Road; however, a second access is necessary and Prairie Road needs to be extended to accommodate traffic levels and emergency response. The layout of the project's private street system is also benefitted by the additional land. Rather than a series of dead-end access drives, the layout now features a larger loop road serving all but 7 of the units. The 7 units on the south end of the project are served by a short cul-de-sac with a radius of 38 feet. Public Works staff should verify the adequacy of the cul-de-sac dimension for trash handling equipment - snow plowing will be handled by the private homeowner's association. Parking and Paved Surfaces. The main internal private street is proposed to be 30 feet wide and the cul-de-sac street is proposed to be 24 feet wide, all dimensions meeting or exceeding the City's standard for private streets. A pathway is proposed along one side of the main internal street, connecting to between Prairie Road on the south and West River Street on the north. The plans do not indicate the type of pathway construction - five foot wide concrete sidewalk or ten foot wide bituminous pathway. The minimum requirement of two parking spaces per unit has been exceeded. Each unit has a driveway that is 25 feet long and 19 feet wide. This allows two vehicles to be parked in the driveway in addition to two garage spaces per 2 . Planning Commission Agenda - 7/03/01 unit. Generally one guest parking space for each three dwelling units is required. The proposed plan shows 45 guest parking spaces, exceeding the minimum standard. Landscaping Multi-residential sites are required to contain a minimum of one tree per dwelling unit. Landscaping that exceeds minimum requirements is appropriate in this situation because it is a PUD and flexibility from development standards is proposed. The proposed development contains 97 units, and the plan contains approximately 130 trees in the buffer yard along the west property line and more than 170 trees on the rest of the property. The west boundary line adjoins a slope and thick stand of evergreen trees. Planning staff would encourage the applicant to consider adding trees along the east boundary, perhaps by relocating some of the west butferyard plantings, to break up views between the two developments and provide some screening of private backyard spaces. Shade trees are spaced along the internal streets throughout the development. A proposed stormwater pond provides some separation between the development and Interstate 94; however, additional vegetative screening would also be desirable along the south property line. . A minimum of 15 percent of the required minimum number of trees for multi-residential developments is required to be long-lived hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches in diameter as measured six inches off the ground. Currently, all of the long-lived hardwood deciduous trees proposed have a 2.5 inch caliper size. The landscape plan must be revised so that at least 17 of these proposed trees meet the 3.5 inch size requirement. Grading and Utilities Preliminary grading and utilities plans have been submitted. These plans are subject to City Engineer review and approval. Development Agreement As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City. Homeowner Rules and Bylaws As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant must submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review. The rules and bylaws should address such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. . Refuse Because each unit will front on a street of sufficient width, trash handling may occur along the street as with any other subdivision. As noted previously, only the cul-de-sac units will need special review for turning and backing requirements of the trucks in the cul-de-sac area. 3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 7103/01 ~ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning of approximately 2.5 acres of land from 1-1 to R-2, based on a finding that the rezoning would be consistent with land and surrounding uses. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Rezoning, based on a finding developed from testimony at the public hearing. Decision 2. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat based on the finding that the proposed plat, with conditions, is in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The conditions to approval are listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat. If this alternative is chosen, findings to support this alternative must be made. 3. Motion to table the CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat based on the finding that the conditions be met and re-submitted for review. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of both the rezoning and the CUP/PUD and preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. As discussed in this report, the land being added to the project enhanced both the design of the project, and eliminates an area of industrial land that would be difficult to develop. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat Exhibit D - Grading Plan Exhibit E - Utility Plan Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval 4 'V" 107TH ST NE , , .,:.A~I. \ LOCATION MAP NONE [f~ 13164 CRAIG SCHRUBER SITE PART SW1/4, NE1/4, SEC. 4, T121, R25 MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA -r"" ~. "./-- J' L" ~u J~t J~! i~ I~ H I I g!, I ! iUi j!l~ {"II JSll J~.I _us ; J ; : ~ i 'Ii 'i5~1 ill ::Cl'il Ii a::: I f I ~ 'i 1;1 i~1 I .J J A r 1: i i ~ I .. j ~ ~l rJ ~ l!. "" I I ;; I ~ us ~~ e !hlh !h "1'1 ~ ~~~Ia ! 8$ '. ~ ~ ! d ~ 555 liPl... Ii; ~ J;j Ii ~@@@@ i III~ III :;! " !!I , Ill... D" ill l'I .. IlIlJl:::lll e " 51J~ ~~ ~ ... :i ~ ~ fie p 'i~ ~ >- Ii Ii E ~ lll;"~ <>:: ~~ g <<( 1:: VI ~ :i ~i :::E :::E liia d III .., ~ I j~;~ ::> l b III ~ ~lh Z f! g r~l'I ... lh~ i!~a!~ r ~ ..... ~ ~~~ z t; ~~ ~I "' z ~ ~~i~ .., 2.._ ~ ~ :::E ~ I I I ~z - 0.. ii ~ ~8n ! lh; IIi I ~~~I .ll'i ~ ~ r r i~~; 9 ~9~l!1 n '" -' "'Ellq w it ....I ~ ~ > lilila I f ~~ ~ .., ~m = ii~J ; I I~i !Ill [:; w i i r::~I~ 0 I ~ s ..,... "Ii: :!l 0 ~!:l f ~ .. ~!Q I " .. ,.; .J .. " " .,.; iii iii )0\7,/ ) / v~ /" [. / \.)~ " ,fi~~'/ /-- ,,-' "''''', ,/ ~ .......... -~~ '" """" - . . ~. ':\,\\, - . , - . . - . . - ' . -..---'. -\. --.' --" - . . /' / ._\\ \ ! =J \) ''-- .._--" ---',---- ....-- ',. I _.,.'~~ . ~~"----~- --:, , ,,/' ...--,__. j ,__. I U-) :,. .. '. - '-I. I -<4" "'''' - AI ;.-'7' "I? "'-. -., ~ ,.............. ...., -- ?-'I/ i ----;---=- /j.,- od!"'-' J... . <^'/ ---..., I ' -.J i I' J -- --,_.::J! -_n",," ' ^IO' -........... (0 -j- to ','/'~/ --~D J,i '~I \~;~~/:I'J(;C~~v, 1nm)'\~I":: ',---' . '-..' J 1/7 Vv I ~. ,,,j -= ,') ,/ I \ 1")"- J f.{ I N \ L-~_ M..Ol.l1.n.<" . / / /,/ /'", "'" "'- I /., / ........ "-.... /' /' ~ "'" ........// ~ /./'/ I /.... / I '" ../ " .. .' ,/~. :/ '" ", / '';' 1.'>" ' " j' tr) " ". / / . --. .,........- I .;;.- . ~ , . --:-- ' . - ~. . '. / /'-, ," (~ " / / '~'... "" /.,: /(. /. \. ,I I ,/ /"'. ....) / I " /'" I .: / / ~/1.,,:t' I ' I '. , ~ / . IOO\! -- / r"^" /. (JClV~'j);!N()~)lS' / I !J; f/ " I 31-11 .. I'D c;;- );.;'" [-- .' 'I {J()f)M-13----"/ .~' ~_ I tli1iif--r -;i~~~' . l5:.. - _ !;j{ ;'Gr.10S--~-ll"R"'~'~; _..., .. ,---C;,^ -1-- , / .,' .// / -' ...... '. .:-'-.'... .......... . .....'-.. ~"..". "- ("I :i ~ ,....,.~ /\1 n i r~ ;....,~ ~, "I V / "-{" . ' / " ...-- (".\ ~~I ~~i J~1 J!! . Iii It II! r-;l I i .. .. 11'1- IS i '8~1 ill :z:EI ... ~ 1: :; . I I Iii I I i\! I fill ::tj; ,_ .lI jtl~ ! I ~h! fhi _UI I n ~ I I Jj .. j i ; J ;! i ~ I I :1 Oi ~ n I ~ ~ " J .;- I ~ --' ~ .41 <0 '.?~,,: I',':j' ." ,. '/' 'ON ~'i ,,','... '~'''\iC',I'': / t;g .. -fi"~4 -:',-.; j '. . ~ c:s -' .-'1 <I) ::::,"';':. ..j- -' ",' - J'" -,,', ,:, ::,~, ' .d':,,,,"- t/lT.Z:cws' 1l"'V-.A\1-:-'" rEl'Z:<;1 L"'\ "'l'J R h.. ~~ ~ 53 l'.i ill ill ill ~~ I >- '" <( :::E ;:IE ::> Vl I- Z W ;:IE 0- g W > W o Il.._ ~ j I I i~ i iiii ~m ~ ~!H Ill<,! "".. g ; 9 "' " --- -' , ; ;/ i ~e e e,P, P, ;!q II l!s .. i ~ i~ r~ .. !J: ~ h ~ s! ~ -.. t p,; ni ~ ~e iE~ i I~ ~a~ - \'" ~ ;! ~cl~ ~ fI 9 tt li~" ~ ~ ~.- :l .. r'i" tti I... '.' E~~~~ ! r:l:Q1ll'l1l ~ h L~ II IIi ~~ f ~ i~~ h ! i ; ~ i!~b~ 1l!s ~ 0- ;~9iSbf Ii 5 ~ 1~lin ii I ~ " 5 ~;~ ~ ~ i~e fa t 1lI~~~ ~ ;i ;j!llio. ~ I i1;~~ ; ~ ilgi ~ i s~i~ ~ ~ I~~c I i ;!i~ ~ ~ ~~ei 01( ~ =",1 . "'" ~ " ~ L( . :" .. , .-: .', 'I " j:", : i ~!i 1~1 dl i,~~ i~ Ii! ~! ~ I ! iJii I!. III .Ciil ZI:; I f I 1i_~ ft {l 'U~. ~..,!; ~~1 ! t.I'l~ i~~ 2~~~ ~ ~'i~ ~ ii~~";; .~ ~~~.. " !~a i i " ; J ~ ! ~ } ! il ~ " i i .I l t . J .. Ii ,l! IIIl ! '&.1. Iii I .1 I I e ~ ~ j g r I~e h ii~ I';: 3 i ~! a ~ i i _; , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ;1;~itlil:;li!ij;~;~ii*ii~ '~! :; i,~ :~~!'I ~~ ~Ii 5:~!~; ~lli~I~~ ~~~ il! ili~1 !:;i!!'!ii!.lll!!i1ii!lill ill ,; ill I!!!. il! Ii!. 11~11! iilll'ii~ Ii! ill! !..II ~~:I~~rl~~iij~i!~I:~~i2~~i. ~~; :; j:' ii9il I:~ :i~~ !i~i~i. ij~I~~~~~ ~~! ;~:~ .~!~e ! !!llliliijI1!ill!I!!i!llli! Iii! i!1 !l! il!I!. I!I l!li ill!iii !I!l!!l!!l il!!!!!11 illlll j !!!i!lll!i!liiilliii!!!1111 liil III !ill !!ll,1 Ii! illi 111!iil !ii!liiiil I iill~II~. !I!ill , / ,,<J f1' , i . wlJ, ,~'u. <.iC/r..' :'.~..f\//~. . Ii!'" . ~ . j',;:/ / ". ./ / I/~">// /i I ..... ( ( ,;.. //'; / . //~,:'~:'<.(" "/ / / ,~l I. "~if If'" " i ',;" '" ;' . '/;/"/1 ''''-'' ,./ "'" .>' / '''-, / \/ 1// I ' , 1/1 ~". '\ 1,/ I . \ ,-' ,e\ ;;1/// I . - . . - . . .-:-\ .\\ . - . ' - . . - ' . /~ <)-/<~~ <:- . . - . . - . . - . \ \ \ '/' ...................... / j/' ''-'".''' "~ "-'- ) '; ,\- 'I (",,) """... .,-l' I '" . "........."...... f :~ r. '~ ...... .'........~-'. . ,.......... "'(~.j . , .' i / J ,'it' I\f V >'18 --.-.-.- J \.....,' "; /---/" ~ - --. ."t~__....~~..'"_t~1 ;..? 0 d,' .:~' -,,; '~, ...., , .. .........- ,.-...... ~' ---- t'" . . '- ,., -.. /< "-'" ,,"'j' , ", "; ,., /.! ! ..."",-,,. ""-'''-'1-< I) Cl,L-i rr~"~;"'<---fH' ,...' ....--.'...~ \~......~ .~, I"..J ~ I ".0'''' .' .. ,,", ,-' -...-- l..:' ,.-!" ((' '17"\' -- .'> ~ \<, .'/\/j /') \....J ~.', ..) , \j C..J I'-~.::,',~ \, '. j v ...:/ 1\' 1 .,...",,'''' __, 'r-~ -,.' . i /.1 : , .'~' .-,' , r, . , . r-f d ~ " '...."'....... '~ '-, ,-'- c' ~ ~. ;' // / --- /LI>!:Jn, II .1 I" II r !! I i " i ! ;. I II' !~. .1 il" L. ,5 . " ....."........-. "\ ) f (}.'\. ./ ~o'f.. \IS / oG /---- -"""'/ 0'<-/' '" ,/ . - I i I I Al '. I i ~a ~Il ! I: ii, 11 iI \~ , t:J ~ g~ ~i!' 0 ~a~ihl ;Ut~~ u~n! BBBUf l.l:' I~ ~~ l - ~ ti 5 ~ ~ .~: g~,; i ., 'il jd ! I ~H : iil. li~~ I l~~ iJi ! I t I; 15 .r .11 l~ s~ I~. i5.1. f ih~ ! ~ i !- Iii! ul ill , f;!i ~ Ji'~ . ~l I I I ! f;ll t 11 T ~ 'OJ J L. I 1 i ~H~ I ~ 11 ! I ~ .. j ~ I ~ -~ "- . . ~ .'. ,~\ . - . . - . . - . . - - -- . . .-- --\,.. " \ \" \ 'u) II /~ ,\~.i (j' ' ,,, ..i" '(- 1'.' I;; III "', / /'/' I.i'; / 1../ < II ,../ ,,/"" . / ',Y '~"<:." ", ...., ". ,/./ ~"'i",.:'. ,. '; . -', -, Ii .,"" /~ "', " / ~/. ;" ~ '..:' / " -,"-..", 1,',' / ." ..... 1 /:. I ',,, ,__ " /~>/ I .,~ 1/'/>/ / 1../,/'1 '/~"(/ z _ . - ' - - . . _(, ,L>.,._~ -<,- -,-- ~. /' ~.' ...-' /"',," ................... ,;/ .' /" ,/ ',- ...... -.... .......... " -, ............. '''~... !, it: '( -T r...r") "" --(,:.\.,l' /' 1/ ,;'--,1 l" --.. .'......,......... "1' .,/ ., I': I; i'i ',,;-,. If )0 ~1 .i \If " hi! Jl . ~ i 1- t..~,.1 IJll;1 Ill!} hii~ ~ g:l i til.~. "uU .....C'iol"i...n .--" /'" " \ ,j JJ / aG ",' \,' / (j ,,-' S' . ,,/ . / Of;' /"'".-" '"'-/ (;<(. / / < '" "\ ) ,...-'"-.~-'''</ / ' /i 'tt" ,0- _ II _ _ ........... . , __.'!_.:~c,~~~.. t, 7 "/0'" --- i i'll ! 5' I) .; , I.\, . (J 8-, , '4-", .........--...-r........,.'./ ,I /--/ ! '1'\ , i ':1 li"j f~ ~~............ 81,1\ 1,,1 ~. tf ,ili Ii ...* ~~ w! ia! 6i~~I>'~i! IUln~ u~n I5BBIHI ';j -r-" I t'- --- I "'l - - I I ,./,,( , , ...'.... ......,"'-. /", /\./ (") I l / .....'~. ..., .......~~~ \ \..,1 I_,C (/ { "I,. r j.~. ,--', ,-,,! Ii '8 \ ,~:'.~j1/1 /'-")" " !",\ ,: f\/r~ ". I t.J ,,~::"/jl\il "'~' \_1, .-1 \ 1'(') '.J l"" ---, ,.--,\ , " \ " \, I ii~1 ~ ~I ~ 11 J~i .e "~ -I t " fJI ! ;p:OI ii! : ~ R' j~il j 1~~ f .~ I~. iii.1. f:!i I i~ )11 III I ~ilJJ I jil l~.1 j j .!J f I _H h d I "!.J :z:!1 T ~ .. --':="'-=.---, . ~ " '" 1 .I ~i j~ ! .. I t \~) ,()' ,<;\ " . ! g J I [ " ~ ! :o! I'l i II ~ ;l .. 1; 5 " ~ ;;;;; Ii IB III I II III III ~ ill ill II I ':! ':! ~ ~ ~ " \i! ;,g ~ ip ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I' .. ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i i ! i I I ~ ~I B ~ I ~ ; '" ~ 1 '" ~ I '^ ~J~ q~ ~ ~ d i. I I:Hu ~ 'I (~-\\~\ j /' . "- .. I ': ) 'j I ~ ~ :;--,--: ___ ~..;' I; ;', ~l ~>j-~;--O'-'Y:J,'-~'''__/--, /.. "',r, ,"., .. ---:-- ~ !\/ I .\ " ~ i r-- I (""'. ;".~ .' <I" :.0 '".! (}\, " \:i} /V ;f/1'1(17 ('-;,: :,Ii (...:) '- 0-'0::50\ .~. ,<'J'~ \ \ " { ..: ~J' m .Ii I ~t>~~ ~ JI ~ "I g ! tUj j I - If :I ~ J- JII I, -ijl J n ;1 -~'"' Ji 1l~ " ~ IIf . fE J '~d I fIg, I I ; I " 111111111111 di.: ~ I ,~ I I J ' ~ _;;a f ~ '" 8 I g I ~ ~ - ~I::J~ z~,,- ~:oli5 CL~! ;;I~" elz'" ..E:;~t] l:'H"'~ ~Vl::;ill fi! ~M Ii ~!J! 'atar:, f " 1IIIi'II I . "~il,' I,",,: r" ~ j :f.:; f d ~:ul, ~ I I ,,':!:f 1'~ a dl III II '" 'i~. ~ jU:ul ~ ~:!d i: .51 61,: j --- (--- ~I ~ l" ___ " i -- ) '" [ ( i ~ J "~ · - Is! I "i!1 '--1-' ) .. J " --- fi! ~i 'i ~!J! I i k ~ Lq , '.1.,.! ~ tJ,,,j '-'-.1 J (l:: ~ n_. ....~ '"' f_. fo..,.. ~ !.Il ~, l/) ,~ ~- .. J! Planning Commission Agenda - 7/03/01 . CONDITIONS OF CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 1. Prairie Road must be extended from the subject property to where the existing street ends. The City must determine timing on how to finance this extension. 2. The landscape plan must be revised to include vegetative screening along the south property line to screen Interstate 94 and along the east property line to create an open "screen" between the backyards of the proposed development and the existing development to the east. 3. The landscape plan must be revised to include at least 17 long-lived hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches in diameter as measured six inches off the ground. 4. The Preliminary Grading Plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. The Preliminary Utility Plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review. The rules/bylaws should address such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. . 7. A lighting plan must be submitted for review by the City. 8. The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City. 9. Comments from other City staff. . 5 j . . . Planning Commission Agenda -7/03/01 6. Discussion Item - Draft Sian Ordinance Amendments for the Highway 25 Corridor. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: During recent discussions on the Mielke PUD, the Planning Commission suggested that changes to the City's sign regulations might be appropriate in the Highway 25 Corridor, south of Interstate 94. This report is intended to summarize the current regulations, and offer options for discussion at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Staff would be prepared to draft an ordinance reflecting Planning commission comments for an upcoming meeting and public hearing, if desired. Current Regulations. At the current time, a business premise in the B-3 District may have one freestanding sign, with size of the sign based on the status and speed limit of the adjoining roadway. For Highway 25, the following regulations apply: Pylon sign area may range from 50 square feet to 100 square feet depending on total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. 3.03 feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 10 feet of lineal frontage with the following exceptions: 1) all properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 [square feet] regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and 2) the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. Properties with freeway proximity are allowed a sign of 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area. Monticello sign regulations. Monticello's ordinance utilizes two different methods to regulate freestanding signage - speed and classification of roadway, and length offrontage on Highway 25. The speed and road classification method assumes that roads with higher speeds and traffic require larger signs for legibility. The frontage method rewards properties with greater investment in Highway 25 frontage with larger signs, up to a point. There are various other ways to deal with freestanding sign allowances. The most common are summarized below: Standard sian sizes. Many ordinances address freestanding signs by allowing a uniform size, regardless of frontage or other factors. These regulations usually apply to all commercial structures, or all structures within certain zoning districts. These are very easy to apply, and typically do not raise issues for PUD projects, since sign size is assigned across the board. Sian size related to buildina size. This approach is similar to the frontage standard. The assumption is that larger buildings are justified in having larger signs, both for scale, and perhaps, as a reward for the taxable building investment. The planner tends to discount the second reason. Planning Commission Agenda -7/03/01 . Sian bonuses for additional setback, or design. These types of ordinances attempt to reward businesses for avoiding a line of signs along the roadway, or for complying with a preferred sign design. Often, there is a grant of additional wall signage in exchange for the use of monument signs, or a larger sign in exchange for additional setback. The Planning Commission had suggested that a regulation might be established that decreased the amount of sign area or height based on distance from the freeway. This would appear to work best under a modification of a standard sign size approach: · Within 800 feet of the freeway, a 32 foot, 200 s.f. sign would be allowed. · From that point to some other point, a lesser sign height would be allowed. · For all other properties, a lesser sign height would be allowed. The Planning Commission may wish to consider these different approaches, and direct staff on any desired changes to the current regulations. Staff will be prepared to discuss this information at the upcoming meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . 1. Motion to call for a public hearing on amendments to the sign ordinance, reflecting discussion at the meeting. 2. Motion to table discussion on the sign regulations to a future meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No recommendation at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA None .