Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 05-01-2001 . . . AGENDA REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - May 1, 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, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 3, 2001. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a planned unit development concept plan lor development of two, two-unit townhomes located at 51 0 West Broadway; and Consideration of a variance to the lot area per unit standard. Applicant: Rick Anderson 6. Review request by Monticello School District to extend the conditional use permit allowing operation of the Alternative Learning Program in an I-I District. 7. Review a planned unit development sketch plan for development of 60 single family lots and 76 townhouse units on two parcels located southeast ofN.E. Jacob Avenue (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue N. E. Applicant: Maplewood Development and Construction, Inc 8. Review the Mielke commercial PUD sign system. 9. Adjourn. -)- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - April 3, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie. Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Absent: Staff: Robbie Smith Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. 2. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Aooroval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 6. 2001. Chair Frie asked that item 6 of the minutes from March 6, 2001 regarding Rod Dragsten's motion opposing the denial of the amendment to the ordinance regarding increased size for freestanding and electronic signs. Dragsten clarified his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 6, 2001. Motion carried with Chair Frie abstaining. 3. Consideration of addin!.! items to the agenda. 4. Jeff O'Neill updated the Planning Commission on the Jay Morrell ordinance violations stating a letter had been sent noting all violations, along with the appropriate copies of zoning ordinances. Chair Frie asked if any of the members wished to attend the May 10tll planning meeting being held in S1. Cloud. The members stated they would contact Lori Kraemer if they wished to register for this meeting. O'Neill also added an update on the proposed Amoco site and the parking study that was completed by the John Glomski. Citizens comments. None . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I ~ Public Hearing -- Consideration of a reLluest for a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food establishment in the CCD District. Location: 617 Locust Street Shops. Applicant: BBF Properties. Berry Fluth and Pizza Man. Fred Patch, Building Official, reported that a pizza take-out and delivery business set up their shop at 617 Locust Street. The business did not require a building pemlit but the proprietor checked with city staff anyway to insure that the business could be established in the Locust Street Shops location. A conditional use permit had already been allowed for the Locust Street Shops. The Zoning Ordinance of the City is ambiguous in its language as related to such a business in the CCD District and staff originally concluded that Pizza Man could establish their business without a conditional use permit. Since that time a similar business has been considered for location in the Town Center Project on Walnut Street. Upon further review of the Zoning Ordinance, staff concluded that it would be best if a conditional use permit was considered by the Planning Commission and allowed for Pizza Man. Patch advised that the Pizza Man take-out and delivery business as located in the Locust Street Shops meets all required conditions of the Zoning Code, Section 14B-5 [0] for a conditional use permit to be allowed. The Planning Commission and the Design Advisory Team have previously given consideration to the Locust Street Shops under the original conditional use permit allowed for the shopping center. Staff has concluded that Pizza Man is a compatible use in the CCD District as located in the Locust Street Shops. Allowing Pizza Man to establish a convenience food establishment subject to the terms of a conditional use permit will help to prevent similar establishments from locating in areas within the CCD District without Planning Commission Consideration. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and after hearing no comments, the hearing was closed. The members questioned the other restaurant located in the Locust Street Shops, but Patch advised that at the time he did not consider the Pizza Man as a restaurant requiring seating as it is a take-out establishment, but since that time staff has reconsidered and feel that this type of establishment may be considered as a restaurant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND ALLOWING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BBF PROPERTIES AND PIZZA MAN TO ESTABLISH A CONVENIENCE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE CCD DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE ZONING CODE SECTION 14B-5[0] AS RELATED TO SUCH A BUSINESS. Motion carried unanimously. 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 6. Consideration of an application for approval of a General Concept Stmze Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development (CUP/PUD) to allow the construction of multiple industrial buildings on two lots. Applicant: Blue Chip Development Company. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising the applicant is proposing the construction of two 14,000 square foot industrial buildings on the property located at 206 Dundas Road. The site currently contains two lots, each of which contains one existing industrial building. Through the PUD process, these two lots may be reviewed as one site. Grittman advised that the land use and zoning for this property are consistent with the expansion of the existing industrial use, architectural renderings and exterior building material information have not been submitted at this time, but will be requested at the development stage. The proposed development meets the lot and building performance standards for properties in the 1-2 District. Regarding parking, Grittman stated that at this time the applicant is unable to determine a specitic use for the proposed buildings and consequently, staff must use the most intensive parking standards allowed in the 1-2 District. The applicant must demonstrate that the site can provide the required number of otf-street parking stalls by: increasing the number of proposed stalls, reducing the size of the proposed buildings, or indicating a use that can conform with the parking requirements. All stalls must be at least 20 feet long and 9 feet wide. The entire parking area must be surrounded by continuous concrete curb and gutter and this curb must be at least 5 feet from any lot line. Also noted was that currently the site has three access points along Dundas Road. As designed, the driveway to access the proposed buildings is not aligned with the center curb cut. To facilitate safe and efficient access to the proposed building in the rear of the site, the applicant should relocate the existing center curb cut so it is aligned with the proposed driveway. Grittman advised that all plans for the parking and access area are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The site plan illustrates two loading berths per building. The number and size of these berths are in conformance with the standards outlined in Section 3-6. However, the turning radiuses for these berths appear tight. The applicant was asked to demonstrate that all berths have adequate maneuvering room for large trucks. The off-street loading area is located on the south side of the proposed buildings and will face the neighboring residential use. The applicant should take special care with landscaping and screening to insure that the loading docks will not have a negative impact on the adjacent residential use. The noise from these docks shall comply with City standards. 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . Grittman advised that given that the applicant is requesting PUD approval with this application, staff suggests that they consider redesign the site's layout. The purpose for a PUD is not only to allow the applicant to place multiple buildings on one lot, but also to create a better and more cohesive development. This could be accomplished by rotating the proposed buildings by 90 degrees. Turning these buildings would move the loading area away from the adjacent residential property, improve the relationship between all four buildings, and improve internal traffic movement on the site. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans will be submitted in conformance with the City Code as part of their Development Stage CUP/PUD application. The Site Plan includes only minimal landscaping information, and a detailed plan conforming to City Standards needs to be submitted. In addition to this information, the landscape plan must also illustrate a landscape buffer yard as outlined in Section 3-3, Subdivision G. According to the City's Existing Land Use map, the subject property is bordered by a residential use to the south. The buffer yard must contain 160 plant units per 100 feet of property line. This requirement can be reduced by 50 percent if the applicant installs an earth berm at least five feet in height or an opaque fence. . A lighting or photometric plan will need to be submitted in conformance with the City standards, as well as a revised site plan showing location for a trash enclosure. This trash enclosure must be made of the same materials as the principal buildings. The must also provide sign information as part of their development stage PUD application, showing the size and location of all proposed signs. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brad Barger, applicant, addressed the commissioners advising that several businesses had approached him looking for building space to lease. Barger also stated that another site plan had been drawn up by his architect showing the buildings turned at another angle as Grittman requested, but noted that this cannot be determined until uses are determined depending on the tenants who would occupy the spaces. Barger noted that having the buildings face the street also is more appealing to potential tenants if they are looking for the use to be office space, and that they are also waiting for information regarding elevations before they complete the site plans. . A resident at 4899 Stoneridge Lane stated the southeast corner of this residential area was owned by his association and is worried about a barrier to alleviate noise, and also questioned whether the potential occupants would be creating a noise problem at night. Barger noted that some of the companies that have inquired have been warehouses and small manufacturers, and stated he could not state for sure whether there would be any night activity. It was advised by Clint Herbst that this area was zoned Industrial prior to the residential development that came in. Frie also advised the resident that the City has an ordinance for butTer yards and noise, and Grittman later stated there are green space 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 and planting requirements for this site which are rather intense. Grittman also noted that some buffers require fencing as well and this may be an option. Another resident. John Clinton, had some of the same concerns; also stating that there is an existing business near this location which has no plantings or screening, and has been a concern of the neighborhood for at least a year, although he did state he has contacted the City on this matter and will do so again. O'Neill advised the resident that the business in question was not in compliance with City ordinance and that the problem is being addressed at this time. Dragsten also stated that the business in question was in place prior to some of the City's ordinances. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members with Carlson stating that the orientation of the building is very crucial regarding noise levels and adding that if a business such as a machine shop were to occupy the space and have it's overhead doors open in the summer, it may cause increased noise as well, and therefore the orientation of the building would be a factor. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Frie questioned Grittrnan about the process of a concept stage and Grittman advised the purpose of a PUD and its process and complexity of a project. and stated that the problem with a project being more complex is that it can cause the applicant a great deal of money for the design process, therefore the different steps in a PUD noting the concept step is the layout with the idea giving the applicant suggestions before going through a significant amount of engineering and designing costing them extra money. Chair Frie stated that the previous item had 15 conditions that were needed for approval and yet the Planning Commission still gave approval and Grittman stated that this is typically how the applicant becomes aware of the conditions necessary for final approval, advising that it could still be a good plan, but that the applicant needs to be aware of the stipulations. L Consideration ofa Concept PUD for a Mixed Use Proiect on the Site of the former S1. Henrv's Church. Applicant: Cedrus Creek Craftsman. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report advising that Cedrus Creek Craftsman has requested City review of a concept for the re-use of the S1. Henry's Church building and property. Grittman stated that part of this area is already zoned PUD and that this concept has some of the same uses as a previous applicant's. At this stage of the project. Grittman stated that building and site plans were not yet developed to the point where they could be reviewed "vith any detail but provided a brief review to help identify the proposed uses and questions which will need to be answered in future review cycles. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . The land uses appear to be similar to those originally considered a few months ago by a different developer, although they are rearranged somewhat. From a conceptual standpoint, the developer will need to be able to address the capacity of the buildings, and parking to be developed in support of the uses. Since the existing parking lot would be redeveloped as housing, parking in support of the performing arts use would need to be added to the current building site. An issue discussed with the previous proposal related to the access to the site. Staff had encouraged a plan in which traffic, particularly during peak theater use times, would access from the south. This issue would need to be addressed as a part of this project, particularly since the parking location will move. The PUD Zoning proposed for the previous project would be applicable for this concept as well, since the land uses are similar. The rearrangement of land uses may have some positive effects (better internal relationships of housing development. parking on~site). However, relocation of the parking will raise the issue of access to the site through residential neighborhoods. Without site plans, staff could not address these issues with specificity. The applicant will need to be prepared to resolve them as the project proceeds. It was clarified that all but four lots to the cast of this proposed project are zoned PUD. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. John Komarek, co-applicant, noted that they are proposing an expanded campus and utilizing Blocks 21 and 22 as the generator of the project with the ability to clean up some of the existing features and create a neighborhood with possibly 20 to 22 townhomes. The North side of Block 28 is proposed as a mixed density parking/green space, with a potential of 180 parking spaces, a building capacity of 3jO to 400 people, which is a downsize of what was proposed in the past. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Some concerns noted by the commissioners were that of parking and access into and out of the area. and stating that the current parish center having potential of office space may create the need for off-street parking. Komerak stated that the parking would actually be placed behind the site. Another previous concern was the time of day that performances would be held and Komerak advised that it is too early in the concept stage to address that question at this time. Komerak stated that regarding parking, it is not the intent to create another blacktop area, but rather the possibility of adding a playground, parking, and green space, and Komerak also advised that he would like to utilize the existing green space and utilities for residential use. Again it was noted that the North side of Block 28 would be designated for parking and also stated that there would be a number of traHic t10ws into and out of the area. . 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT FOR RE-USE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. HENRY'S CHURCH AREA. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE MIXED USE CONCEPT WOULD BE POSITIVE FOR THE PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. Motion carried unanimously. .!L Consideration of an application for a Development Stage Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminarv Plat to allow the development of a townhouse proiect located on the Klucas propertv. Applicant: Craig Schreber & Associates, Inc. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report stating the applicant has applied for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow an 90-unit townhome development. The applicant did not submit a concept plan for review but has met with staff to discuss the development. The proposed townhome land use is consistent with the zoning for the property; 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; the proposed 90 units would create a density within this area of 6.6 units per acre which is an appropriate density for medium density residential development and the plan illustrates a minimum setback of 30 feet from all property boundaries and therefore, the setbacks from property boundaries are compliant. 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 of40 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 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. The proposed project also meets the general standards regarding building spacing and height, building elevations and floor plans were submitted. The property gains access from Marvin Elwood Road in the northeast corner of the property and 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. In previous discussions staff asked the applicant to look at the possibility of connecting the northern two dead~end streets to provide greater connectedness between units. The applicant has decided not to connect these two streets due to space limitations. Instead, the applicant should provide turn- 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . around space at the end of each driveway. Grittman also advised of the street and private drive widths, parking units which exceed requirements, additional guest parking, landscaping requirements regarding number of trees are also exceeded and staff recommends that trees be added or rearranged slightly to provide better screening along the east and south property lines. Thc submitted landscape plan contains a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees. The majority of trees are located along the western property line to provide screening of the industrial site to the west. Evergreen trees are grouped along Marvin Elwood Road on either side of the entrance to the development. Evergreen trees are also scattered along the eastern boundary between the proposed development and the single-family development to the east. Staff recommends that larger groups of evergreen trees be planted along the east boundary 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. Screening is not proposed along the south property line. A proposed storm water pond provides some separation bctween the development and Interstate 94; however, vegetative screening would also be desirable along the south property line. The landscape plan must be revised so that at least 14 of these proposed trees meet the 3.5 inch size requirement. . Grading and utilities plans have been submitted and are subject to City Engineer review and approval; applicant is required to enter into a development agreement with the City; applicant must submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review, which addresses such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. Staff had recommended that trash collection areas be created along the main drive as is shown on the plan to allow the easiest pick-up for the trash collectors. However, the resolution of the issue of how to design trash pick-up in developments with dead-end private streets has evolved. The City Council has now indicated that they would like to see hammer-head turnarounds with individual trash collection for each unit in situations like this. This will prevent residents from having to haul their trash to the end of the block, which may be over 300 feet away. Regarding the hammerhead drives, City Council recently approved these at a previous meeting regarding a request from Eagle Crest Northwest. and Chair Frie questioned if the hammerheads were adequate for garbage and firetrueks, and it was stated that they were and that this is also being reviewed by the City Engineer & Public Warks Director. There was discussion regarding the buffer yard and landscaping on the east side which abuts the residential area. and Rod Dragsten stated that this site is open and recommends that the buffer be placed on the other side. . 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Gair, MFRA, provided additional information, noting there is a change in topography by about 10 feet on the industrial side on the western edge. Eastern side is residential with bike trails/pathways, and parks which are attributes to this site. He provided exhibits showing their survey of the site and noting that after review, it was decided to keep the housing inside the green space with entry from Marvin Elwood Road, and stating that 46% of the site is common open space with good access to the trails and streets. Gair advised that they will incorporate the 3 W caliber trees required; also showed where they relocated approximately 12 coniferous trees to the south to provide additional screening, as well as relocating about 7 conifers from a norther point and placed along the southern edge. Also clusters will be placed along the eastern edge that originally were put in for garbage collection sites no longer needed due to the installation of the hammerheads. Gair stated they are working with NSP to have lighting at each of the key entrances and one at the far west of the open space. Chair Frie asked how soon the homeowner rules and bylaws could be submitted and Gair stated they could submit this information as soon as possible if necessary. . A resident at 307 Marvin Elwood Rd, questioned how much space there would be from the backside of the townhomes to his garage, stating he felt it looked somewhat cramped. Gair noted it would be 30 ft at closest, which is well in excess of the City's ordinance, again noting they intend to keep this development as open as possible; landscaping spaced typically 15 to 20 feet on center, and Gair stated there were no trees put at this resident's particular site but that they could be added. Gair also advised that the units are owner/occupied homes with double stall garages and a particular floor plan that is split. The resident also noted his concern regarding the lack of maintenance of other developments in that area and it was noted that this would be addressed by the bylaws. A resident at 226 Crocus Lane, Lot 3 Block 3, whose front yard overlooks this project, felt that the density was too large stating the landscaping between east/west is just trees and no berm, although there is a natural sloping, and the resident was concerned about people wandering through this area. The resident also stating he just sees a handful of trees to the freeway site and Gair advised that staff had requested more plantings and that this would be done. Gair also stated there are 271 plantings which averages 3 per unit and the density is vvell within the ordinance. Gair advised that Outlot A is a common open space of 148 x 114 ft with parking availability to the area and additional groups of open areas which could be used as play/recreation areas and stated that 46% of the development is open/common space to accommodate outdoor recreation. . A resident at 222 Crocus Lane. also had concerns with the density of the project and questioned the cost of these units, stating his concern if they were starter homes and the 9 Planning Commission Minutes ~ 04/03/0 I . possibility of them not being kept up. Gair stated his offense to this resident's implications that these townhomes would bring in residents that would not take care of their homes and that there would be an overabundance of children running around in this area. The concerns of the residents were somewhat alleviated when advised that the value of the units would be in excess of $150,00 per unit. A resident at 235 Crocus Lane asked about opening the road to Prairie Rd and asked about the entrances to this development. She also asked about the possibility of installing a chain link fence along the back side and Gair stated they had not considered it. A resident at 211 Crocus Lane, questioned emergency vehicle access to this development and Gair stated that the primary road is a 30 ft wide road, which is actually the Plymouth Fire Code standards; and also asked if soil samples had been taken and Gair stated this would be addressed. John Smith, GM of Electro Industries, questioned whether there would be fencing on the west side as trees have been more of a deterrent with vandalism, and he would rather have a fence put in. Gair stated that it is not in the present proposal. . Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Richard Carlson gave a brief background on this property that years ago it was set up for larger density with large apartment buildings, but because it was not adjacent to or close to downtown, it was felt that it was not appropriate at that time, so it was downsized to townhomes/duplexes versus what could have put in. Dragsten fclt that John Smith had brought up a good point regarding pine trees versus fencing near the bulk oil refinery. Jeff Michaelis, 630 E 4th St, owner of Riverside Oil, noted the trees are very far off the property lines and he also has concerns with the possibility of vandalism, stating the fire department had previously been called to that area after kids had started fires in those trees. He would also like to see some type of fencing versus the trees. Chair Frie asked if Michaelis' property was securcd with fencing and Michaelis statcd it was not. Michaelis also stated that moving the trees could hurt his ability to expand his property in the future as it reduces the setbacks. He also felt the screening on the west should be put back. Gair stated there will still be a solid edge of trees and that they are only removing a portion of the second row of trees, again stating that the quantity of trees required by ordinance is met, and the open area that Michaelis talked about will be landscaped. Grittman explained the rcason for the setbacks of housing and landscaping, as this is adjacent to undeveloped property. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT WITH CONDITIONS, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . ZONING ORDINANCE. Motion carried unanimously. There was further discussion by Rod Dragsten of his preference to have a fence installed on the west side of the proposed project. 9. Consideration of an application for a Development Sta~e Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminarv Plat to allow a mix of commercial uses. Applicant: Dan Mielke. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report advising the background and existing conditions regarding the applicant's request for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow a mix of commercial uses. The City Council approved a concept stage PUD for this site at their November, 2000 meeting. The City Council also approved the vacation of a portion of Cedar Street from Chelsea Road to Oakwood Drive as requested by the applicant contingent upon approval of the development and final stage PUD and associated plat by the Council. Grittman provided a brief review of the proposed development stating that the proposal relies on Planned Unit Development "PUD" flexibility since much of the project would share parking between parcels and utilize common driveways without separate landscaped areas between parking lots. . Grittman also stated that the applicant meets the required setbacks except for the rear yard, Cedar Street, which the applicant states they need flexibility for construction of the proposed gas/convenience store and the gas station canopy. He also advised that the off- street parking setback is compliant; however, f1exibility is requested from the curbing setback standard for the drive lane for the fast food restaurant to be reduced from the required 5 feet to 0 feet along Chelsea Rd, as well as the drive lane for gas/convenience store to be reduced from the required 5 feet to 0 feet at the Chelsea/Cedar Street corner. Grittman advised that building elevations and f100r plans have not been submitted and outlined the required and proposed parking, noting that the total required spaces are 187 and the applicant has proposed 179. While the PUD process would permit the City to waive the need for the additional spaces through a shared parking concept staff has two primary concerns. First, most of these uses do not have specific peaks which are different enough from the other uses to justify significant departures from the ordinance requirements. The gasoline and oil change facilities have only moderate peak usage times, whereas the restaurants will all peak at the same times. Thus, the overflow from one use will not have an unused parking area on adjacent property to absorb the demand. . Second, the bulk of the parking deficiency occurs on the south half of the site with the convenience store/gas stationlretail site and the new fast food restaurant. If the 1,546 square feet of retail space was eliminated, the required number of parking spaces would be reduced from 30 to 22, which would be closer to the number proposed. This situation . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I is of signiticant concern since there will be no overflow street parking available. Thc City has recently experienced the effects of an under-parked restaurant in the downtown area. Grittman explained parking requirements for the proposed uses and how some spaces could be shared, stating that the north half of the site has adequate parking; however, more parking is needed in the south half unless the City grants flexibility from parking standards. The planting plan schedule does not include the number of proposed plants. This must be added. The landscape plan includes deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs concentrated at the periphery of the development. Landscaping along the northern boundary is on the adjacent property and requires the adjacent property owner's permission. However, this will raise an issue for this project, since this development would have limited control of maintenance and/or removal of that material. Grittman stated that the City would request to see written consent from property owners and an arrangement for maintenance of landscaping needs to be handled. He stated that when landscaping is made as a condition of the approval, the applicant has no authority to cut down and/or take out any landscaping and policing is a problem and tough to enforce. Again Grittman stated that for a PUD design, the City requires enhanced landscaping in exchange for flexibility from other standards. Grittman also noted that no wall sign plans had been submitted and staff recommends the plans be submitted so that the entire sign plan package for the PUD can be evaluated. The PUD contains five lots; therefore, the total allowable sign area allowed for the site is 1,500 square feet. A bonus allowing a "freeway standard sign" (200 sq. ft. in area and 32' high) applies in this case because part of the property is within 800 feet of Interstate 94. The sign is allowed to be 32 feet above the center line of Trunk Highway 25 since that is the street from which the sign gains its principal exposure. Almost none of the proposed signs comply with the minimum five foot setback from any driveway or parking area. . 1. 2. ., J. 4. 5. 6. . 7. Also provided by the applicant were proposals for freestanding signs. Grittman stated that if the proposed signs were constructed as proposed, the following flexibility from sign standards would be required: Increased height of the freeway sign from 32 feet above the center line ofTH 25 to 60 feet. Increased size of the Subway sign from 50 square feet to 72 square feet. Increased size of the Ultra-Lube/Ultra- Wash sign from 50 square feet to 80 square feet. Increased size of the fast service restaurant from 50 square feet to 60 square feet. Increased size of the c-store sign with fuel pricing from 25 square feet to 64 square feet. Increased size of the c-store sign directional sign from 25 square feet to 37.3 square feet. Increased size of the center entrance sign from 25 feet to 88 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . 8. 9. 10. Increased number of signs from 1 to 2 on the c-store/gas station parcel. Increased number of signs from 1 to 2 on the fast service restaurant parcel. Decreased setback of pylon signs from any driveway or parking area from 5 feet to 0 feet. At this time, more information on wall signage is necessary to evaluate the compliance of the sign plan with zoning ordinance requirements. Whereas some signage can be combined or shifted under the flexibility process of the PUD, the number and height of the proposed freestanding signs would appear to extend beyond that which the City commonly considers reasonable flexibility. A photometric plan has not been submitted and is required. Details of the type oflighting proposed have been submitted, but locations and fixture height have not been indicated; preliminary grading and utilities plans have been submitted and are subject to City Engineer review and approval. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke, applicant, and Michael Knisley, architect, provided the concept plan previously approved, pointing out the modifications made to the site plan since that time. Mielke stated the size of the retail space located on the west side is for the purpose of marketing and the needs of potential tenants making the parking wrap around. Also advised of the modified landscaped area for snow removal stating that they cut the landscaping in half by Ultra-Lube allowing for snow removal as well; sign locations are the same; widened the main entrance to 26 ft versus 24 ft for better turn radius for emergency vehicles and large trucks. The applicant also noted that there is a shortfall of 12 parking spaces on the site plan stating there will be more seating area in the proposed restaurant versus kitchen area which affects the number of parking spaces; convenience store and pump islands are required to have 30 parking spaces in that area but their proposal suggests that the fuel islands themselves comply with parking requirements as typically customers fuel up stay parked rather than moving the vehicle to another spot. The applicant also discussed shared use of parking stating that a restaurant that is open 24 hours a day has peaks and valleys in regard to parking which allows the other facilities the potential to have access to that open parking at those times as well; therefore the shared use of parking. Mielke added that there is actually more parking and they are larger spaces, 9' x 20', for the traveling public stating they wish to keep larger spaces versus more parking spots. Frie asked about R V's taking up 2 parking spots and Mielke noted that they had planned for that as previously stated. Mielke noted that the proposed turning spaces are adequate for large delivery vehicles versus the current conditions which are smaller; Knisley also stated the delivery areas were separate and off the main track. . The applicant also discussed the building designs not being all the same on these sites as Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/0 I . they are ground lease sites; however they do agree that standards f()[ building materials/codes will be met. Frie asked about policing of the covenants and Mielke advised that they do have in place an OEA agreement to take care of the City's concerns, adding that they have control over entire site. Grittman advised that these are not the same as a townhome covenant, and Knisely added that if the City wanted to review the agreement that would be possible. Time frame of the project was discussed and Mielke stated it is critical to them as well as they need to provide information to their potential tenants to accommodate their needs. Herbst questioned if the project was to be completed in 2001 or 2002, and Mielke stated that was the intent although engineering has to be addressed, as well as utility work to be done by the City, and their intent is to begin as soon as possible. O'Neill advised that the feasibility study is in process for Cedar Street. Chair Frie questioned why the applicant had not met the conditions prior to this meeting and Grittman stated that after staffs review the applicant had submitted information in a timely manner, the landscape plan is not required until a later date, and the development stage is the last time there would be a public review, the final stage would be the next step. Staffs responsibility is to look over the final site plan and make sure that all conditions are met before final plan. Lighting plan is to comply with City ordinance and have no glare. Mielke asked for the planning commission to consider approving their plan so they can move ahead with the OEA agreements and secure tenants. . Mielke further discussed the signage stating there are 8 different businesses, including Subway which will be adding on; prefer to have a freeway pylon similar to the Silver Fox, Amoco Station and SuperAmerica, which staff advised were in place prior to the City's ordinance. Clint Herbst added that he thought the existing signs on Hwy 25 are approx. 50 ft in height and staff also advised that the signs are not in compliance and that SuperAmerica had received a variance due to the pre-existing sign for the previous business. There was further discussion regarding sign heights being the same on the Hwy 25 corridor, noting that if a business was within 800 ft of the freeway it would qualify for a 32 foot sign; and unless the Planning Commission can find a specific hardship or reason for varying from the ordinance regarding height, they would need to be careful in determining what that is. Also stated was that if the businesses along Highway 25 wanted heights visible from the freeway, how far down the corridor would the City go to allow sign heights in excess of the ordinance as every business would argue the same. Mielke stated that the existing Ultra-Lube sign is 22 ft in height and he feels that is too low, would ask that the 3 proposed signs on Hwy 25 would be the same in height, approximately 30 feet. Fred Patch advised that some sign heights were adjusted back in 1997, when they were completely blown down, to keep them in accordance with the ordinance. . Again Mielke questioned \vhy the City would not want all signs on Hwy 25 to be the same or symmetrical, adding that he feels he will have an issue with potential tenants at the end of their site on Hwy 25 if signage is not higher, more visible. Herbst discussed . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 the possibility of varying sign heights so they would be more visible, but it was stated that spacing the signs appropriately helps with visibility. Patch stated the City has not conducted a detailed review of the signs and suggested moving forward on approval of this development stage plan and look into the sign issue by surveying the existing signs. Mielke also discussed the issue with traflic coming in from a different access, they would request the wall signage on the east side as well. Patch states number of walls for signage is at least 2, but there is a square footage requirement. The planning commission discussed that it is a dead-end drive and also do not want to over-sign the development. Patch advised that some existing signage could be moved. Herbst questioned if a variance could be granted due to the access change but it was stated that directional signage is allowed, up to 10ft is allowable without a permit. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members asked Grittman for clarification on his recommendation as it stated he did not recommend approval as presented. Grittman advised that he did not recommend approval without the conditions as stated in the staff report, again adding that granting a PUD should result in a site design which is superior to a plan which complies with the basic zoning regulations. The members also asked Grittman if he was concerned with parking and he stated he was comfortable, with Patch also noting the phasing of the project and how much of the parking will be built, amount of landscaping put in, at the beginning, and possibly this should be addressed in the conditions as well. Mielke added that the larger retailers/businesses wanted 30 to 35 parking spaces each and the members questioned the lack of parking to the south, would people walk from site to site? Popilek also noted that the 8 foot variance on Cedar Street will still need to be addressed; members questioned if the PUD plan were to change would the applicant have to come back to the planning commission, and Grittman advised that it would be a judgement call by staff. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT, WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, TABLING ITEM #4 REGARDING SIGNS TO BE SURVEY BY CITY STAFF AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE MA Y I MEETING, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION AND PROPOSED USES, AND THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS QUALIFY FOR PUD CONSIDERATION UNDER THE CITY'S PUD ORDINANCE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Update on Jav Morrell site violations. Jeff O'Neill advised that he made one last effort with Morrell to go through the planning process with the City and had given him a deadline of April 9, 2001, which is the . . . 11. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/03/01 planning commission's deadline for the next meeting in May. The City Attorney is also aware. Amoco Site O'Neill advised that a proposal to put in a restaurant and parking on the former Amoco site was reviewed by the HRA and at this time there is a potential issue with parking. He advised that a parking study was done identifying current parking spaces in that area. Steve added that the survey determined that almost never do the parking lots fill to even half. He also stated that there is a good supply of on-street parking available. Staff is also looking at what other types of developments may go in to that area and how that would atTect parking as well. 12. Sunny Fresh Fred Patch advised that he and O'Neill had met with Don Roberts from Sunny Fresh regarding installation of sidewalks, trails, etc., and that Sunny Fresh was receptive to discussions with the City in working with them. Sunny Fresh advised that at this time they do have a problem with parking issues during shift changes. Richard Carlson stated that he had noticed that Sunny Fresh had done a nice job of installing trees on the south side of their property and asked if the Community Center was intending to do the same. Patch stated that the HRA is helping to fund this project along with the Walnut Street improvements. 13. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:25 P.M. Motion carried. Recorder 16 . . . Plann ing Comm ission Agenda - 05/0 I/O I 5. Consideration of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan for development of two two-unit townhomes located at 510 West Broadwav~ and Consideration of a variance to the lot area per unit standard. Applicant: Rick Anderson (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Rick Anderson has submitted a PUD concept plan that includes the development of two, two-unit townhomes. The subject property is located at the corner of Maple Street and Broadway. Variance from the lot area per unit requirement has been requested. The property is 19,316 square feet in size and contains a single family house that is planned to be demolished. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District. Two-unit townhomes are a permitted use in the R-2 District. Land lJse and Zoning. The proposed two-unit townhome land use is consistent with the zoning for the property. The property is located on the fringe of the downtown area and is surrounded by primarily residential uses. Setbacks. The front ofthe property is defined as the boundary abutting a public street right- of-way having the least width. By this de1inition, the front ofthe lot is the north side, which faces Broadway. Based on this definition, the front and rear setbacks are insufficient. Based on the layout of the townhomes, it makes more sense for the east side adjacent to Maple Street to be the front. The required and proposed setbacks listed below are based on the assumption that the City will grant f1exibility in defining the front of the property with the PUD. Front yard (east side) Corner side yard (north side) Interior side yard (south side) Rear yard setback (west side) Required 30 feet 20 feet 1 0 feet 30 feet Proposed 35 feet 20 feet 14 feet 30 feet Lot and Building Requirements. The property exceeds the minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet and exceeds the minimum lot width of 80 feet. The proposed buildings are compliant with the maximum building height of 2 Y2 stories and each unit contains 1,402 square feet of floor area. Two-family structures are required to have 6,000 square feet of lot area for each unit. The site is 19,316 square feet in size and is proposed to contain four units, resulting in 4,829 square feet per unit. The City may wish to grant flexibility with the lot area per unit requirement as part of the PlJD in exchange for a high-quality design that is appropriate for the location. Project Design. The submitted project has many attractive features and has the potential to meet a high standard appropriate for a PUD. Driveway access to the street is shared, reducing the amount ofpavement along Maple Street from Cour driveways to two driveways. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/0 I /0 I . This creates more green space in the boulevard and increases the space available for boulevard trees. The design ofthe driveways and parking areas creates an almost square area of paving in front of the structures that lends itself well to being surrounded with trees and shrubs and creating a courtyard atmosphere. Bedrooms are located on the second floor above the garages. This tuck-under garage style presents an attractive architectural front to Maple Street and diminishes the visual impact of the garage doors. The entrances to the units are located on the sides orthe units. Therefore, the front door to the unit next to Broadway faces Broadway, increasing the compatibility ofthe townhomes with the single family homes that front on Broadway. The ground floor plan illustrates a covered porch at the rear corner of each unit. This would also add to the architectural detail and variety of the side facing Broadway. Landscaping. The concept plan shows the general location or proposed trees on the property. The locations are well distributed on all sides of the structures and create an attractive setting for the homes. Adding some evergreen trees along the west property line would provide some privacy for the back yard spaces. When a detailed landscape plan is submitted at the development stage, the addition of shrubs would further enhance the structures and yards. . Grading, Drainage and Utilities. Grading, drainage, and utility plans will be required at the development stage and will be subject to City Engineer review and approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve the PUO concept plan based on the finding that the PUD concept plan, with conditions, is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and is in compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance. The conditions of approval are listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the PUO concept plan based upon a finding that the requested increased density is incompatible with the surrounding land uses. 3. Motion to table the PUO concept plan subject to the submission of additional information. B. ST Aft' RECOMMENDAfION . The density of the proposed development may be considered appropriate given its location on the fringe ofthe downtown area. In exchange for density l1exibility, the project provides some attractive features such as a narrower than typical driveway width in the right-of-way 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/01/01 . for the number of units proposed, the potential for a courtyard atmosphere surrounded with landscaping in front of the buildings, a tuck-under garage style, a front door entrance facing Broadway, and a covered porch adjacent to Broadway. All of these features help to integrate the structures into the existing neighborhood and provide an appropriate traditional-style character along Maple Street and Broadway. Staff recommends that the PUD concept plan be approved subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. C. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Concept Plan Exhibit C - Drawing of Facade Exhibit D - Ground Level Floor Plan Exhibit E - Upper Level Floor Plan Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions of Approval . . 3 11m III I:'",! . m. ~ iil I ~i f~j ..' J !lil ~ -~l~'---'----- "-~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .--- ...... I ~ Q ~ ...... .--- U / ~ J ~ o ~ ~ tt" ~j ..., "' ,;; ..., '" ,;; E '" p., ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ w......>.:.:: o~a; ~ ~ 'S ~ ~.~.~ Ul ~~"'~ Op,:~", ~ ""d lL. Q,l ""d ~ ai .c: CIl C\l: P::: ~ Q.} 0) a.> [fl .~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ g 8 ~ ~ ~ >,.Ct:_:: 0 -I--l ~ co N N Q) ~ .~,~ I >. ~ ~ ill 5: Q) (l) ~ : "0 ,;;....J '" ';:; E '" e::: '-' '-' a ::l ;~"'~ ~ co"" a,: ~ ~;:::o:l a<Zl-:;;;::rr..rr..e~,:;i e88'O Q::l~~~;:~~~~ 58~~ ~ :2 ~ -: d ~ ~ ~ fl1 ~ ~ .~ 's ~~8:2f)rn::g~~~~~J ., ~~ .... ~ e ::l '" 'Om ,:;i ..., .~ .... ..., '" 15 ~ >-, ~ CIl .,..j ~25~3 .5 E .... .... ~ ; 8 ~ t; i!l >Il a ::l ::l u"d"d >-, - ,;;,;; : ~ e ~ ~ ~.~ ..c: .... -...J ..c:..c= ~ ~ ao~~ aoao"::l :I::~u::::o::P-. o o g~:t 0.( EXHIBIT A O-~MT~NN_~MTU~~~~ .("~~~"~~~~~~u___~ NOS\:GONV >r:::>/ij [OO~/ir /-p. 8~[}[]@J~[i]rnJ@J8 8B8~88 AVMGVOHg .lS3M . '~. ',j .~ ,0 I (J.) I'") r., " L:.:.':'>' , I ~~'I ;, I V.LOS3NNIY\l 'O,.3:)!l.NOVl( 'J. VMClVOHfi l.S3M tOg B~G[EJ[}!J .----"0. I . . . '.: ~'.,. '.: :>.';... . , '" ''-', ."; ~ '.. . ~ , . ,'. .. '." .' ..:.', :,1,.,.'..... .. , . . '. .'. . ..: -r ~~".f,'_ ,~+ ' '":: --------- 'Tf\~f.i 1\". " ~llJ - , O;? ,..- .A'f!'L. ~ir4~~ ~ I I ',_ "'t... I { I .dtr~. tl.1~~ r<") I co ~o\ i III 7' ..,j )- I. tk: LIJ n o I ,_'~ '~ ) lL- ~~ I~i rt'jj I rol (!'}j I ~'1JI... ~~, t:.!_ ::--.' ~....: I -'~0~~~~ 'c' !-~ ?LI . ;-.. 1"'/ ~.O /;~. :I: I- ~ o z o t"'4 l ] c, I . 4:ij-'.;n.....--~ L~j~<L'....... ~ < I ....~.7'e.-'" ~ i .,'h, ;,,~. -=-,.=;~ I I~:"; ...."'. ~ -,-.. ~.I <r~ ~;~ sr: .~.\.I.. " f-- ';J, ....-.,- Z :'::..: '':::: ". ..r ,.. ." u.J. '//\.\" _"'~"~i.... _ ," t. ::~ ":"--' ./ ~O"l!... " .';~:"r-'/ . - ...}-. r.... ,-. ,I.;:", ;,', . ..\~ ~ EXHIBIT B;J NOSH3ClNV :>l::J1I:l [00(::/.. /r "'8 EJ Dll @J riD [iJ rrJ @] d1 'f l.OS~ 'O'1l301l.NCwi ').VMOYCt:li .LS3M ros d1EJEJ~J18 EJL1G[gJlli] . . . <too '/0 - L. 0' 'vl ~ eXHIBIT c 'O~ ,._ NOSH3CNV >lOtH 100(;/7/Y gEJQJJ@J[ii]~U1J@Jd1 . u.) ~ . ---- V.LOS3NNIYi '0"1-'3:::>I.lNOv-l 'J..VMQVOt:/; .lS3M 105 d1EJ8~d18 EJlJG~~ l' J., I I f. -1-. ....' . "O-'.Gt ):: I I ,,9 in:.,', I ' ' --~-Y'. , , ,,(.,-' ,8 -i" ! -, 1/,,__"1T' " L " I., . 1 en I ~IJ':- , I " F -'1 f"--.... r.... ('-I " I b~' ,I. - ill "" " 1 'OCI -',- 'wu ' >(][ 0,0- UIl..- I I . I 71 - I ,..."] I -I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I J""/ " I, I 'f- I" I ',' I I"~ . "1"-'" "," ~:p.!--, J " ..- It.- j'~ 1--' /\: . .~ ". . .. '. " '" , .'- . .;~~ :'". :'.~ . vO ..:.... :',' - _1_,- - .. -.. - -. ._- vd W~8T:TT T00c 60 '~d~ 0t:'vc-c89-~9L "ON :X:~.::l ~ uJ~ l1! '" ~ <{< X It:: u<{ 0 C"( '" ....... C5"'" B ,-,-- ":JU EXHIBIT 0 /.' r' ! I' ,:, f:~. l:::I;; o z i 1 I I IZ :<9 i...J ~ 10- "'" Ia::: :0 1 :-.J J - I '0 IZ : ::::> lOll, (1) Ice r' 1'-' ~ I I 1 I I I I I I I I .J ", WO~.::l ".-NO~3QNY )l:::>lij IOOZ/v/v BEI~@JG{JG:J[M]@J8 Vl.OS3NNI~ 'O-'I3::>I.lNO~ ';"VMQVOU'B J.S3M LOS 8~EJ~88 8lJG~QD i' -, 'tl---. "- I ,. I "- " I I 'T1 'nl I . I.l) I 1 I I I ~ I "'J I I ';,-, I I I I _{ 1 I I .::) I r.... ';--.J I I I I I 1 I I , 1 I , I -'1<--"1 / i/ . r-------- ,--------- J I I I I II , , " " " j 1 .._____ : r------- " " I' \ ' " " " , ' , [ I' " " I' ,I ,I " I' , ~-:- \. '! +-.. 1- ./ ..9- ,lY-; "- /- 1 -:-,. I, 1 'K" - - I :: "- -- II " I II "- I :: '- I II ~ :: I ',- II I ':: I : ~ ~ "O-Sl ..{.... :? .- ,(;-_.... [ I ! ,,9-,U: ,,0-,9 I, -------~ -, '. , "- , : , II I: I, " , , '-. . '':-."-,. I. , , I .- ." . ':ii.. -:,::","i.~ .... '&:.-,' I! ".i-<-;8~;;; ill ?:;.;;.:;<.~'~;~:c.\... ,. :. .w..".. ,~:!:l\': a:r'~' 1:::G:;j'{J;:l,~~~~~fir~~ ":'~ . ;...: . . , ','. . .. . ~. ..' ." ./ ------1 J' I :: I :: I :: I /: I 1/ : .1 I I , , I I I I 1_::: .: .. .... ,..:" , '.. ,~' " , ;'~-:'./;/~ :" ./ ./ ./ ,./ I: ,.",,' . - - - -.. ... / -." / I I I I 1 I / i r /~ i / ',. i / ,- ...-, :r: -.. .. ,~. - - n -; I f- ~" n :: I a: 1 0 'I Z I, I 'I " I i, II I " \ ) I 0 'I I ! I IZ :- "I : I i< ~ : I en 'I '~, " :.-1 I, I, [ I [0... II , I 10: " " " :0 ' \ " iO " " I, i-1 I, , , iLL , I 'I I I, 10': , i " IW " 11- " 'I ICL I)) I, 10.. I, Lf> 'I I, I::> f - " -...9 " I J, I I, " I ~'I o 0 :: I I, I " 1 ... .J , . ------- I "- "- I , I , I , , , " - .~.,J "EXHIBIT E WOH.:l . . . RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL 1. The developer submit a complete PUD development stage application in accordance with Chapter 20. Section 20-418]5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the development stage application be submitted within nine (9) months of the date of concept plan approval. The PUD application shall include project design and landscaping features as described in the Planner's report. 2. Comments from other City staff. EXHIBIT Z . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/01/01 6. Review reenlest bv Monticello School District to extend the conditional use permit allowing operation of the Alternative Learning Program in an I-I District. (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As you recall, the City has allowed the operation of the Alternative Learning Program as an interim use in the I-I district by conditional use permit. During the previous review cycle, the School District was granted an extension to the CUP permit. As part of the discussion, it was noted that the School District should seek an alternative site. Attached is a letter from Mike Benedetto outlining the School District's efforts made to find an alternative site. Due to difficulty in finding a suitable location, the School District is seeking an extension. Please note that formal action on this question is not requested at this time. A formal application and associated public hearing will be needed in conjunction with extending the permit. The purpose of the discussion is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding School District efforts to find an alternative site and to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to respond. The Planning Commission's response will help to shape the next step by the School District. ALTERNATIVE ACTION No action is requested, discussion only. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StafT recommends that Planning Commission review concerns and discuss options. Provide feedback to the School District as you see fit. Withhold formal action until a formal application and public hearing is held. SUPPORTING DATA Letter from Mike Benedetto to Mayor Belsaas . . . M MONTICELLO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District No. 882 302 Washington Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Telephone (763) 271-0300 Fax (763) 271-0313 March 28, 2001 Mayor Roger Belsaas City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mayor Belsaas, As we discussed at our last meeting, we are having a difficult time finding a suitable location for the Alternative Learning Program (ALP). During the past few months we have looked at the following sites as possible locations for our program: KMOM Building - We will need a considerable amount of upgrades and permission from the township and county. The owner is not interested in making the financial commitment to bring the building up to school standards. This site was our number one alternative for quite some time and it is unfortunate that we lost so much time waiting for the owner's decision, who originally was very agreeable and then turned cold to the project. Old St. Henry's Church - The potential sale of the property for future development is an entanglement that could present significant problems for us if we relocated a school to that location for any length of time. Old Methodist Church - I have spoken with representatives from Sunny Fresh. The company has other plans for the building and they are not interested in renting the site to us. Golden Valley Furniture Building - The building is currently occupied and, therefore, is not available to us. Kjellbergs Building - This is a building behind the Golden Valley Furniture Building. The building is currently occupied. The owner would have to make a significant investment into remodeling the site in order to make it appropriate for a school setting. There have been other leads that we have received but once we have looked into them they have never become legitimate possibilities for a school site. LoA . . . Because of the difficulty in finding a suitable location and the timelines that we have, I am respectfully asking the Monticello City Council to refer to the Planning and Zoning committee our request for an extension of the conditional use permit at our Turning Point School site. I am certainly willing to attend your council meeting and a Planning and Zoning meeting to formally make this request and answer any questions you may have. Please know that we are in jeopardy oflosing this very important asset to our community if we can not find a suitable location for these students. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. MB/ja Cc: Board of Education . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/01/01 7. Consideration of a sketch plan review for development of 60 single familv lots and 76 townhouse units on two parcels located southeast ofN.E. Jacob Avenue (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue N.E. submitted bv applicant Maplewood Development & Construction. Inc. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan consists of two parcels within the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA); One 17.3 acre parcel is immediately southeast of the Jacob (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue intersection, while the second 25.1 acre parcel is located approximately 500 feet south of the intersection along Fenning A venue. While the parcels are not contiguous, they are being considered together as part of this pun concept for the purpose of balancing density across the project. The OAA Land Use Plan guides these parcels for future development of low density residential land uses. Low density is defIned as development with less than four units per acre. The density within the townhouse portion of the project is approximately 4.5 units/per acre and the single family element has a density of approximately 2.3 units per acre. Evaluating the separate elements collectively, the overall project density is approximately 3.2 units per acre, which would be considered low density. Collectively, both parcels meet the 12,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit requirements for the R-2, Single and Two Family District, with approximately 13,580 square feet per unit. Evaluating the parcels collectively allows for the development of the townhouse uses on the parcel directly adjacent to the Jacob/Fenning intersection. This more compact land use type may be appropriate at this location given the traffic impact of these two major roadways and the isolated character of this parcel. The parcel is somewhat isolated from other surrounding residential uses by existing or planned park facilities and steep topography to the south and east, which prevent through street connections between neighborhoods. Townhouse Site Design. The townhouse parcel is proposed to have two accesses, one to Jacob A venue (CSAH 18) and one to Fenning Avenue. The proposed access to Jacob Avenue (CSAH 18) will require review by Wright County. The proposed access to Fenning A venue is 550 feet south of the Jacob A venue intersection and 350 feet from the south property line. The City Engineer should review if this is adequate intersection spacing on f enning A venue, as well as alignment with streets accessing Cardinal Hills Sixth Addition to the west. Internally, the townhouse project is served by a through private street. This street has a 60 foot right-of-way. The City requires a minimum 24 toot street section measured back of curb to back of curb within townhouse projects. The City recently approved a similar Planning Co 111 111 ission Agenda - 05/0 I /0 I . development that provided 30 foot street sections. This street section design would be appropriate here given the through street function for all of the units. For the private streets extending off of the main throughway, a 24 f<Jot section should be provided with concrete curb on all surfaces except for the asphalt pads leading to each garage. Hammer heads also need to he provided at the terminus of these streets to allow for emergency vehicles and garbage haulers to turnaround. Due to the narrow width of the proposed streets and driveways, some accommodation should be made for guest parking. The area in front of each garage would provide room for one or two cars (depending on dri veway width). Additional guest parking at a ratio of one-half stall per unit should also be provided. Setbacks within the project are 30 feet from any public right-or-way. A 30 foot sethack should also he provided at the east and south property lines. One huilding encroaches slightly into this area along the south property line. The buildings should also be sethack a minimum 25 feet from the private streets extending offofthe internal public street to ensure adequate access and visibility if there are vehicles parked in the driveways. Most of the buildings are only sethack 20 feet tram the private streets. . No information has been provided at this time regarding building design or landscaping. The developer will need to provided detailed building elevations and a landscape plan addressing perimeter, common area and foundation plantings with a forthcoming development stage application. Single Family Site Design. The single family portion of the project has been designed in consideration of the R-2, Single and Two Family District perf0fI11anCe standards. The layout of the subdivision and lots reflects a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size with 80 foot minimum lot width. Absent any topography or wetland information, all of the lots appear to have adequate buildable area within required setbacks. The City may want to require submission of specific house plans for Lots 10, 25 and 28 showing construction of a single family dwelling with the ability to provide a three car garage and attached deck or porch based upon the encumbrance of the lots by the gas pipeline easement to avoid future variance requests. It should also be noted that the gas pipeline company has indicated that they may restrict the construction of fences across their easement. For this reason, consideration should possihly be given to designing the lots such that the casement is across front yards rather than rear yards where fenced yards may be desired. The single family element of the concept plan has access to Fcnning Avenue. This access is centered on the parcel's west boundary. Again, the City Engineer should review the . 2 . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/01/01 proposed access location relative to spacing on Fenning and alignment with potential future street extensions to the west. Secondary access is provided via a connection to Wildwood Road within Wildwood Ridge to the cast. The conccpt plan should also provide for a future street extension to thc south, which is planned for future low density rcsidential use, to improvc access and neighborhood connectivity. The developer should also provide a skctch plan for future resubdivision of the tower and exception parcel northeast of the single family lots, including street layout and lot designs. The design of the right-of-way and street section within this neighborhood should match those in the adjacent Wildwood Development and as may be recommended by the City Engineer based on tratllc generation. The streets within the single family area include five eyebrows or shallow cuI-dc-sacs with islands. The design of these eyebrows would require furthcr review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate emergency and garbage hauler access. From a public works standpoint, these eyebrows create additional maintenance and snow plowing issues. Consideration should be given to minimizing the LIse of such eyebrows or eliminating them all together. The devcloper should document that the towers on the parccl to the north do not threaten single family lots in the new subdivision. . The proposed street system in this project requires several turns from the northeast corner where it connects with Wildwood Ridge, and the access point to Fenning Avenue. Wildwood Ridge was intended to serve as an internal minor "collector" street for the area, facilitatingneighborhoodtraftic from both subdivisions betwecn Fenning A venue and county Highway 18. Staif recommends a more direct connection, with sweeping curves rather than abrupt turns as designed. One suggestion would change the Fenning Avenue access point to a location farther south, eliminating at least one of the "eyebrow"shown on the concept plan. Park and Trail Dedication. Chapter 6 ofthc Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication of 10 percent of the gross arca of the plat for development of parks and open space or payment of an equi valent amount of cash in lieu ofland, subject to review and approval by the Park Commission and City Council. Based upon the gross area of the plat, approximately 4.2 acres of land is required to be dedicated for public parks. The concept plan includes a proposed 1.3 acre park within the center of thc single i~lInily neighborhood. This parcel is encumbcred by the gas pipeline easement, which may restrict development and use of a neighborhood park. The largest contiguous area not effected by the casement is 0.6 acres in size in the southeast corncr of the proposed park. There is also a 0.1 acre area not effected by the easement in thc northwest corner of the parcel. Provisions for trails along Jacob and/or Fenning A venue should also be considered. . 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/01/01 . The concept for the townhouse element of the project includes paths leading to the pond at the northwest corner of that parcel. Simi lar pathways, whether public or private should also be provided to the east and south property lines to provide pedestrian connections to the planned park areas. One such pathway should be considered which accommodates bike/pedestrian traffic through the City's park area, extending through the tower property to the single family project. This pathway ultimately would be intended to connect the townhouse area, the single family area, the City's park and Water Tower park site, and provide access to the school campus to the northwest. Grading, Drainage and lJtilities, No grading, drainage and utility plans were provided as part of this concept plan review. Some indication of storm water ponding is illustrated for the townhouse parcel, but no such information is shown for the single family units. Consideration of a development stage application will require submission of grading, drainage and utility plans, which are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. B. AL'rERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Consideration of sketch plan comments and guidance to developer for plat and PUD submission: . The Planning Commission should provide design and land use guidance to the developer based on the comments in this report and other items raised at the meeting. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the sketch plan for a PUD concept plan, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the sketch plan for a PUD concept plan based upon a finding that the proposed use is inconsistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 3. Motion to table action on the sketch plan for a PUD concept plan subject to the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION From a conceptual viewpoint, the proposed development is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development ofthis area. The size and isolated character of the parcel abutting Jacob and Fenning Avenues may make it . 4 . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/0 I /0 I more suitable for development with twinhomes opposed to single family lots. The proposed single bmi Iy clement of the project is fai rly straightf(Jrward, although addition consideration should be given to how the exception parcels to the northeast would be integrated if developed in the future. Technically, issues such as street design, access locations, setbacks and suitability of some of the single family lots must be revised or reviewed in greater detail. These issues arc not so significant however as to prevent this concept from going to the OAA Board for approval and then moving to a more detailed development including both PU D and plat applications. The Planning Commission should consider inclusion ofthe recommendations and conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORrlNG DATA Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit Z: Site Location Concept Plan Recommended conditions of approval . . 5 . . . RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. The developer submit a complete pun development stage application pursuant to Section 20. Section 20-4rB]5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the development stage application be submitted within nine (9) months from the date of concept plan approval. 2. Access to Jacob Avenue is subject to approval by Wright County. All intersections with Fenning Avenue are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. Public streets are to have a 60 foot right-of-way and 30 foot section within the townhouse area and a street section consistent with those in Wildwood Ponds fCJr the single family area. Private streets within the townhouse area are to be 24 feet wide with concrete curb (not including pads leading to garage stalls). 4. The concept plan is revised based upon a reevaluation of the eyebrow street designs and provide to a local street extension to the south property line of the single family parcel. 5. All townhouse structures are to be setback 30 feet from any public right-of-way or perimeter lot line and 25 feet from any private street. 6. Additional guest parking is to be provided within the townhouse area at a ratio of one-half stall per unit. 7. Site and building designs are provided with the development stage application for single family lots 10, 25 and 28 showing the ability to locate a single family dwelling with a three car garage and deck or porch. 8. Park and trail dedication is subject to review and approval of the Parks Commission and City Council. 9. Comments of other City Staff. EXHIBIT Z . . . .8.., Planning Com 111 ission Agcnda - 05/01/0 I Review the Mielke commercial PUD sign system. (10) Staff report to be provided at the meeting.