Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-12-200710 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 121h, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison Present: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Jeff O'Neill, 011ie Koropchak, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Gabler. Commissioner Spartz requested that the change of the Commission meeting from July 3'd to July 1 Cth meeting be updated on the cable scroll. 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 3. Citizen comments. NONE. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi -tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair, and Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Fleet Farm. Chairman Dragsten provided a brief update, noting that the recommendations on the comprehensive plan and rezoning for the north and south parcels had been made at the June 5th meeting. Planner Grittman explained that this is a request for planned unit development, a request for a series of conditional use permits, and for preliminary plat. The Planning Commission reviewed the land use issues previously, including the comp plan amendment and rezoning request. The Commission had mixed recommendations related Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 to the north and south parcels, which will go forward to the Council on June 25th. Grittman stated that the applicants have proceeded with a site plan request, which has come forward to the Planning Commission for review under the assumption that Council could approve the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, although there is no guarantee that they will. With a recommendation from the Commission, this application can then go forward to the Council in a single package. Grittman indicated that if the Council does not approve the comp plan and rezoning, these other applications become moot. So for the June 12'hmeeting, Grittman stated that the Planning Commission is asked to assume that Mills is successful in their comp plan and rezone request and that Council would then be in need of recommendations on these requests. Grittman stated that it is important to refrain from discussion on the land use issues. Grittman gave a brief overview of the project. The request is for the construction of a retail store south of Chelsea Road, which runs along northern edge of the southern parcel. The south parcel includes the primary retail building and outdoor storage and display. The south parcel also includes a separate lot reserved for future development. A PUD is requested to incorporate a 2.5 acre parcel north of Chelsea. On that site, Grittman said that the applicant would construct their convenience store, gas station and car wash facilities. They have asked for PUD to accommodate joint signage. Grittman indicated that the flexibility of a PUD is that it allows some variation from strict application of the zoning ordinance to allow an exchange in some aspect of the site to offset the departure from the zoningordinance. Grittman reminded the Commission that with a PUD, the City should see a superior designed project that exceeds standard zoning regulations. In this case, the applicant is seeking flexibility in the signage regulations and proof of parking arrangements. Beyond that, Grittman stated that the applicants have proposed site plan as shown. Grittman indicated that he would highlight a few of the aspects of project, then work through staff recommendations. After that, the applicant may have a number of comments. Grittman pointed out that the south site gains access from two points at Chelsea to the main parking area. The access goes around the building for trucks and building materials. He stated that the applicant shows a cul-de-sac terminus, indicting that they will not make use of Dundas going through to Chelsea. The applicant is looking for an area of outdoor storage and display, enclosed by a screening wall. Grittman referred to the north parcel, stating that the site includes two full accesses from Chelsea into the convenience store and car wash. They have also provided for parking and stacking for the car wash. As indicated, Grittman reported that the preliminary plat illustrates Lot 1, Block 1 for a primary retail facility, and a vacant Lot 2, Block 1 .The staff report found that a number of zoning conditions have been complied with. Grittman relayed that numerical landscaping requirements have been met. However, there are some circulation elements is that have been recommended for change by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 lie staff report references other standards that have been applied to other PUD or shopping center designed projects. With that, Grittman referred to the conditions of approval. Grittman commented that staff recommended 18 conditions. Grittman reviewed the conditions noting that all approvals are contingent on the outcome of the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments. In terms of condition 2 as related to the signage request, staff's recommendation is to comply with ordinance. Although Ryan Companies received a larger sign, the site included a number of large and small retail sites. In this regard, this site is more akin to WalMar , which was allowed only one sign at a smaller height and area. Grittman stated that a photometric plan is a requirement for verification of conformance to the ordinance. The applicant has provided a photometric plan reflective of other Mill's sites. Condition four requires no racking of materials outside of building or outside of the screening wall. Grittman again referred to the Wal-Mart store, stating that their conditional use permit allowed inside racking, and they needed to remove the racking outside of the iron wall in the exterior storage area. The City worked on enforcement action to move Wal-Marys racking inside the iron fence. Essentially, Grittman stated that exterior racking has to be enclosed. For condition five, the report identifies a shortage of parking. Grittman stated that staff believes that there is more than adequate parking on this site. The ordinance has a requirement for satisfying demand, which can be met by proof of parking. This requires the applicant to document that the actual supply is adequate, after a period of time, that condition can be relieved. Grittman continued to condition six relating to wall signage, he said that the code allows a specific amount with the maximum being 100 square feet, plus transfer from the anything left from the balance of the PUD. The staff recommendation is that the applicant not exceed 133 total square feet for signage on the convenience store. Condition seven requires that the two access points be reduced to one at the north site. The width of that lot is approximately 205', and given traffic volumes and the proximity of the two access points and neighboring access points, the City Engineer has recommended a single access. Grittman noted that staff would support retaining two accesses on the south retail portion. The condition requiring right turn lanes is a standard requirement of any major new site user. Grittman commented that condition nine requires that the temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road shall be reconstructed as a permanent cul-de-sac as part of this project. Grittman explained that condition ten relates to a provision for alternative paving materials, which are recommended to identify pedestrian areas and to avoid additional available outdoor storage areas. Staff have recommended that a similar treatment be utilized for traffic to and from parking areas. As such, Grittman commented that this condition recommends that any additional outdoor storage, sales or display will require a separate CUP. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 Grittman stated that the engineers have looked at the entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, 40 Block 1) and are looking to identify a future access point, as with the reconstruction of Chelsea Road, they would like to understand where future curb cuts will be. It is also recommended as condition thirteen that the applicant re -orient fuel pumps. Grittman stated that it is the opinion of the engineers that there is difficulty with stacking space due to access points on Chelsea, particularly with access limited to one point. They have suggested that the applicant flip the building and move it back to provide more stacking space. Condition fourteen requires that the applicant revise elevations to provide more vertical details in the main building. Grittman explained that the City had required facade improvements at other major retail facilities, and it is staff's opinion that it is appropriate to make same recommendations for this proposal, as well. Grittman commented that condition fifteen is related to the architecture of car wash. Grittman noted that the car wash will have a lot of visibility to the adjacent property and community, particularly given the amount of traffic. Staff are recommending some improvements to that building.. In regard to the silo and condition sixteen, the recommendation of staff is to allow the silo height, but alter the color scheme so that it is less obtrusive and more in character with the area. Grittman noted the Fleet Farm in Lakeville as an example. . Concluding his review of the conditions, Grittman indicated that conditions seventeen and eighteen relate to the City Engineer's recommendations and include techincial engineering points for the site plan. Grittman stated that staff did not make a recommendation. However, he indicated that staff believes that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the eighteen listed conditions are appropriate. Spartz asked if the access road continues around the whole building. Grittman replied that there is an access drive around whole building. Spartz inquired if there are any drainage ponds associated with these sites. Grittman reported that applicant can address storm water management more directly. Spartz sought confirmation that Council can't take action on land use until after EAW review period. Grittman stated that was correct; Council will also be addressing the negative declaration of EIS as part of EAW on June 25th. If the EAW is relevant, it will be wrapped into Council report as part of their review. Hilgart asked if the reason for PUD is only for the parking and signage. Grittman stated that the primary issue relates to sharing of signage between two sites. If the project were all on one side, or adjacent, and signage were not shared, proof of parking could be done by CUP. Signage is what kicks the PUD into play, Grittman said. He explained that the applicant can develop on two separate sites if each had its own signage. Hilgart questioned how large the Home Depot and Target stores are. Grittman estimated Target to be 170,000 square feet and Home Depot at perhaps 130,000 square feet. He also noted that Walmart was about 215,000 square feet. 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 140 Voight asked if the silo were white or cream, would there a decorative orange band. Voight commented that the Commission could still recommend banding, even if gh g, recommending a white cap. Grittman responded that stated staff looked at Lakeville as model in that recommendation. He said that the Lakeville silo is a little lower at about 50 feet. Voight stated that in the packet, the report seems to note that there is plenty of landscaping. Voight sought verification on the ordinance language. He said that the way he reads the ordinance, 80 plant units are required per 80 lineal feet of property line. So, the buffer yard would have 80 plant unit per lineal foot, the landscaping shows 289 plant units. Voight stated that the ordinance further requires that the applicant provides half of the buffer yard. Grittman replied that Voight is correct in the way he is interpreting the ordinance. The applicant is meeting the numerical standard for providing half of the buffer yard. Voight asked if the ordinance always requires half. Grittman answered that if the applicant is developing adjacent to what is already a fully developed neighborhood, they would be responsible for a full buffer. Voight clarified that Mills wouldn't have to provide all of the buffer, even with UMC developed adjacent. Grittman explained that UMC has in place a heavily landscaped buffer. Dragsten asked about a public sidewalk for the project. Grittman stated that the sidewalk has been part of Council discussion as related to Chelsea Road. Dragsten asked about the construction and responsibility for the right turn lanes. Grittman indicated that they would most likely be coordinated with the reconstruction. Dragsten asked if colored cement could be used as an alternative to scored concrete. Grittman answered that the intent is to actually provide a tactile difference noticeable to drivers and a textural change for the pedestrian. It serves as a reminder for vehicles to slow down through those areas. Dragsten stated that his concern is that pavers or scored concrete ends up being a maintenance problem. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Sandy Suchy addressed the Commission on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. She explained that the Board of Directors, which is made up of 12 diverse business members, unanimously approved a resolution regarding the item for decision, with 11 of the 12 present for a vote on the resolution. Suchy read the resolution, which stated that the Monticello Chamber of Commerce welcomes Fleet Farm to the community, but recommends to the City Council that current zoning along Chelsea north and south remain industrial and that all conditional use permits be denied. The resolution further stated that the Chamber Board feels it is best in the long term interest of the community to keep industrial focus in this area. Suchy read that the resolution states that the Chamber Board believes that there are other areas in community designated for commercial use business such as the Fleet Farm complex, urged the City to look at these area before making a decision. Perry Sloneker, Best Western Chelsea Inn & Suites, spoke to the Commission. Sloneker indicated that if he would have been told that the first time he would address the Commission was in support of denying a Mills Fleet Farm, he would not have believed it. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 Sloneker stated that he encourages the Planning Commission to deny the request for the CUP proposed on Chelsea Road. He said that although he is delighted that Mills is coming, he is affected by industrial properties and the assumption that it would remain industrial. He reported that this spot zoning would impact his business. He indicated that his business is built on the premise that it would be light industrial, which he stated that he needs to survive. He recommended that the City should find a creative way to bring Mills to town so that everyone can work together. Bruce Buxton, representing Mills Fleet Farm, stated that he would like to present a detailed outline of the proposed use and the Mills project. He commented that Mill's wishes to obtain a recommendation of approval on these requests, knowing that the Commission has already recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. Buxton noted that their request does ask for PUD flexibility. As part of the plan, they are proposing a retail store with parking, a merchandise yard, gas store, joint signage and car wash. He reported that the site was chosen based on location and access, and noted that the area population in and around Monticello is a draw area for Fleet Farm. There is a supporting transportation system, both on and off the freeway and major thoroughfares. Buxton stated that they have looked for other sites, but because of the size, shape and the site and the interferences present on other sties, none have suited their use. Buxton remarked that in their view, this store is in line with part of the City's plan with the interchange. He commented that the use is reasonably compatible because of mixed uses present in the area, and noted that the City had already rezoned for Target and Home Depot on the other side of the interchange. Buxton presented a photo of the area, illustrating the project locations with access points. The existing conditions show a wide open and flat site. In terms of architecture and materials, Buxton stated that their construction is exactly the same as some of their neighbors. He indicated that Mills' is an upgrade to many because it is a new building. Buxton reviewed the different uses on the two sites, stating that the project is more like a shopping center without walls. He said that they intend to have a yard entrance to control customer pick up and deliveries. The entire merchandise yard perimeter will include a screening fence. He also noted that the parking stalls provided are sized larger, as most customers drive pick-ups or have boats. He commented that the landscaping provided is more than complaint with landscape requirements. Referencing the signage proposed, Buxton references again the various site elements in terms of considering the area as a shopping center. Commenting on the building aesthetics, Buxton stated that he had some concern with staff's comments. He said that these are highly detailed architectural pre -cast panels. The wall system is exposed aggregate, in buff and plum tones. The front facade includes three architectural fenestrations with EFIS that is white and chamois in color. The c-store is rock face block, with prefinish grout. Nothing will be painted; the dome and trim will be pre -finish in orange and dark brown. Buxton noted that the orange has been their corporate color since 1955. Buxton presented a color palette to the Commissioners. C Planning Commission Minutes — O6/12/07 10 Buxtonexplained' o that the Lakeville store mentioned is a remodel and couldn't handle the structural requirements for a taller silo. Buxton remarked that they don't think white looks good, as everything white gets dirty. He said that white has more maintenance than anything that has color. Orange is the most appropriate for this site. He stated that the silo is covered in EFIS with scored joints to make it look like a silo. Buxton reviewed slides illustrating the store layout. He again stated that the building is a mall without walls, which carries many of the same items as many other department stores, and many items they don't. Buxton showed interior pictures of other Mills stores. He stated that the proposed store is 273,000 square feet, with 70% of the footage in retail, with back up for storage that cannot be on the floor. Referring to the convenience store, Buxton indicated that it includes bulk storage of five grades of fuel and convenience merchandise. Buxton again presented pictures of other new stores. He reported that the car wash is constructed of pre -cast panels because car washes are strong environments where block does not hold up as well as pre -cast. He stated that it is the same architectural pre -case as on the rest of the building. In terms of the storage yard, Buxton showed a typical perimeter view. Exterior backing is two by six treated lumber; the only metal is the roof structure to provide weather protection. He indicated that it is typically white. Buxton reviewed the signage, stating that the main sign is proposed to be located on the north parcel. The retail store has building letters and logos, as does the c-store. The car wash has a menu board and directional signage. Buxton illustrated a typical free standing sign, stating that they do not have a readerboard shown as there is no benefit with the freeway at 70 mph. Gas mart includes a monument sign. Buxton stated that he believes the signage is proportionate to the size and shape of building. Council Liaison Wojchouski left the meeting. Buxton also provided comments on the staff report conditions. Regarding the comp plan and rezoning, he stated that they understand these requests are contingent. For the main sign, he indicated that they are concerned that a lower sign with landscaping will not do the job. Buxton referenced the landscaping requirements. In terms of site design for the north side, he noted that there is an 85 foot easement, which they need to keep off of. Buxton reported that Fleet Farm has complied with landscaping requirements. On the submittal, they have provided for 100% of the required plant units without regard for what anyone else has provided. In total on these sites there are 5,198 plant units all the way around the perimeter, Buxton reported. He said that a photometric plan has not been submitted specific to this site, as it changes too many times prior to building permit. However, Buxton said that they are happy to comply at the time of detailed review. He noted again that the site's stalls are larger than required, at 10' by 20' . He explained that 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 if they were re -striped, they would have made up the deficit in parking. Buxton indicated that there is lent of room to provide for more parking in the event more is needed. plenty p p g Buxton stated that in relationship to convenience store signage, he believes that they can work with staff to adjust signage as requested. Buxton stated that they do not think one access is reasonable for the fuel station. One access will result in huge congestion and people not getting in and out of the site. Buxton said that they have sufficient turn lanes, which they believe to be appropriate. One access at the c-store site creates a problem for tanker truck maneuvering. Buxton indicated that they concur on the need for right turn lanes and asked for them to be included in the Chelsea Road project. Buxton stated that in regard to the temporary cul-de-sac, they felt like they were doing the City a favor in terms of Dundas Road. He stated that he hasn't looked at the configurations to determine how this condition impacts their site. Buston stated that pavers or scored concrete become on annual maintenance issue. He explained that Mill's puts stops signs in front of every store. Additionally, there is a snow and ice problem which can causes a lot of slips and falls. He stated that they work very hard to identify traffic control and striping as appropriate. They do have pedestrian ramps, which they think are important. He said that they are willing to work with the City to come up with something. In terms of outdoor sales, Buxton remarked that they haven't identified any specific needs at this time. He noted that they will have things typical to convenience stores, including propane and ice. Other than that, he stated that they don't put things outside as they are used to metro requirements. Dragsten asked about a garden center. Buxton answered stated that they typically have a vendor that provides plants, trees and shrubs. Buxton stated that the parking lot is designed for the Christmas season and that they have typically never had a problem with parking. Regarding the Lot 2, Block 1 access condition, having no idea what will go there, they have no idea where to put it. As an engineer, he said that he can guarantee if is put it in, it will be in the wrong place. When something goes in, he stated they recognize that removal of the curb is part of any approval of the next plan. Buxton stated that they are willing to work with the City on that, but believe it is premature. Buxton indicated that they understand the fuel pump orientation request. He reported that they had looked at the orientation recommended and found it takes up more depth than available. Again discussing the architecture, Buxton referenced the four side elevation rendering. He said that they had worked hard at corners and mid -points to provide differentiation. He commented that he thinks there is a lot of quality color and fenestration. As discussed with the car wash materials, they used the same exposed aggregate and pre -cast for durability and looks. Buxton said that he understands concern about facing the freeway. However, it is important to note that with the screening around the side, the building size and the traffic speed, it is unlikely that vehicles will even see the building, let alone the doors. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 B ' Buxton reported that the International Building Code requires maintenance of 60 clear all around building. The back side is controlled by fence with a notch box for fire department access anywhere they want. For drainage, Buxton reported that there are two city ponds, one on west as part of the property, and the other on south side, extending onto school property. They obtained capacity information from the City and provided the City Engineer with storm water calculations to show they will comply. The only item not sized was the north site, which the City requested to run to pond on west side of building, which is not a problem. Buxton made himself available for questions. Voight inquired about Buxton's position on the cul-de-sac condition. Buxton replied that when they re -oriented the building, they saw no point in preserving that access. He indicated that he had gotten the impression that the City didn't want retail traffic going through the industrial road. Other than that, he stated that he doesn't have any comment at this point. Spartz asked Buxton for confirmation that there is nothing planned for Lot 2, Block 1 at this time. Buxton confirmed, stating that staff recommended that the C-store and car wash go on that site, but the orientation and stacking have not been able to work. In relationship to more parking, Buxton noted that staff has told us them they don't need the stalls. Dragsten stated that showing other stalls in proof of parking would be ideal. Dragsten indicated that he agreed about keeping the two accesses at the convenience store. Dragsten stated that he would defer to engineers on the cul-de-sac issue. Dragsten stated that he agreed with Buxton on the use of pavers and suggested there may be some sort of alternative that can provide the differential asked for by staff and acceptable to Mills. Dragsten commented that for the design of the car wash, they City has had situations where things that have been put on I-94 have not turned out the way it had expected. Therefore, this issue is taken this very seriously. Regarding the building itself, Dragsten stated that he believes all these materials are high quality. However, it is such a big building, he stated that he has trouble relating in terms of scope and scale. He said that in trying to visualize the building, he doesn't know how it will break it up, and that is a concern. Buxton suggested that if the Commission would like to see a building, they have locations with this building in Appleton and in Rochester. Dragsten commented that speaking for himself, it is a big concern as this is going to be a high -profile building. It is going to have a lot of interstate exposure, and so the City needs to make sure that what is represented is what the City will get. Buxton responded that the building is an owner occupied building. Buxton stated that the owners are doing a lot of things to make this a quality project. Dragsten replied that it is a nice looking store. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 O'Neill noted that Council Liaison Wojchouski was unable to stay due to prior commitments, but had indicated that she was in favor of leaving the dome the corporate colors. Voight referred to the proposed pylon at 400 square feet and 50' tall. Voight asked if the issue for Mills is complying with the height or area. Buxton answered that it is important that people can read the sign and move over to exit at the appropriate freeway exit. Buxton explained that they think they will draw customers from 50-60 miles away. Voight commented that he is in favor of the silo height and color. He suggested that he agrees that 32' for the sign height may be a little low. Dragsten stated that pretty much everyone else in that corridor is at the 32'. O'Neill stated that while the Ryan sign is higher, it was allowed due to the amount of square footage, and the fact that none of the 7 users have the opportunity to have a separate pylon; they are limited to a monument sign. He noted that other higher signs in other areas have been grandfathered in. Dragsten commented that overall, the City has been pretty consistent in requiring applicant meet the ordinance. Voight noted that Ryan's sign is right on freeway. O'Neill said that from a planning and visibility standpoint, some other formula may be applicable in terms of distance and landscaping, as there may be an opportunity to come to another number. Staff hasn't had an opportunity to look at something in between. Dragsten noted that the Commission has been reluctant to approve higher heights and more square footage because everyone wants to be a little bigger. He recommended looking at the ordinance rather than allowing variances and preferential treatment. Voight stated that he is not in favor of a big sign taking up space; he just questions how well it fits this site. Dragsten commented that they have other advantages, including their 67' corporate dome, and the big name on the side of building. Dragsten stated that because we have some success in controlling sign proliferation, there isn't a lot of sign competition in this area. It may not be what they're requesting, but there is not a lot in the way, so it will be prominent even if not quite as big. Stuart Mills, owner of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm, provided comments to the Commission. Mills explained that he and his brother Henry started Fleet Farm in 1955. Mills provided background on the origins of the company, which began as a fleet store, serving the farmer. For years farmers have been very loyal and Mills is recognized as the farm store. Mills explained the silo is important as it represents the basis of their business. Mills stated that part of the reason for choosing Monticello as a site, is because Monticello serves a great farm area, and a great community, Mills stated that he thinks they could be an asset. He commented that when the City opened the interchange, this area become a commercial location; it is no longer an industrial location. He cited Target across the interstate. Mills remarked that Monticello is centrally located, which is a key factor for them. Mills stated that he knows the Chamber has reasons for what they have to say, although he disagrees. He noted that this is the first time they have had a Chamber that didn't want Mills to locate in their community. Mills stated that they are not a public company, 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/ 12/07 and that they are honest, fair, considerate, and that they work hard. Mills referenced the variety of goods carried and introduced his wife Sandra, who designed the women's boutique in the store. Mills thanked the Commission for their consideration and thanked that staff and for their work. He concluded by stating that Mills Fleet Farm would like to be part of the community. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the items in exhibit Z. Voight indicated that he thought there should be some sort of compromise on the signage. Hilgart and Dragsten stated that they would support striking the requirement for one access on the north site. Dragsten stated that he agreed with Buxton in regard to pavers. Hilgart stated that he likes the orange for the dome and that he did not have an issue with the building design. Dragsten questioned that if going down I- 94, what would the Commissioners want it to look like. He stated that while it looks like it is coming forward and back, it is hard to tell from the pictures. He recognized that there probably isn't a lot more to be done with a building of that size. Hilgart stated that he believes they could strike condition 14 relating to building design. Voight indicated that he would strike 7, number 10, and number 12. He stated that he is unsure on the building design, but is happy overall with the design. He stated that he would also strike the requirement to change the dome color. He indicated that he is also unsure about the condition relating to the design of the back of the car wash, which is item fifteen. Dragsten again cited other projects along the interstate that the City was not happy with and noted that he would rather err on side of caution and leave that in. Spartz stated that the Commission could send 18 conditions forward, and noted that the Council has never been pleased with any conditions, much less with 18. He stated that if the Commission removes four, that still leaves 14. Spartz questioned whether that gives the City a superior development. He would prefer to make sure that everything is in the right place, especially on a 250,000 square foot building. Spartz stated that while he doesn't have a problem with the four items the other Commissioners would strike, he noted that they are trying to perform surgery on Exhibit Z. He suggested that perhaps there is an option to table the item to allow a re -draw as some of these are very important issue for both Mills and the City. Grittman reported that in reviewing the conditions, it appears that Mills and the City agrees on 9 of 18 conditions, which were 1, 3, 4 ,5, 6, 8, 11, 17 and 18. Grittman said that there are some issues to clarify on number 9, which relates to the cul-de-sac. He stated that it looks like the Planning Commission is at least leaning toward striking 7, 10, 12 and 16. Essentially, Grittman stated that leaves four items yet to resolve 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/ 12/07 10 Grittman stated that regard to item 2 there is some discussion about some kind of compromise, For items 13, 14, and 15, the discussion has been mixed. Grittman stated that the last four are those that need the most clarity. Dragsten stated that he doesn't recall what was done on other PUDs for signage, but noted that some of those were grandfathered in. Dragsten commented that for him, if there is a reason to make a change, it needs to be an ordinance issue. In relationship to the convenience store orientation and fuel pumps, he would recommend working with staff. For 14, he noted that the same discussion was held with the review of the Wal-Mart proposal. At that time, staff sat down with the architect to make subtle but important modifications. He noted that they didn't create any great hardship for the applicant. Grittman noted that the applicant has also provided more clarity on building materials. Dragsten asked if staff would be comfortable with Commission's direction on the building design. O'Neill stated that staff would keep it even with what has been required on other bix box sites. Grittman noted that the important thing is to carry forward to Council the comments of the Commission. Staff can work with the applicant between now and then to discuss modifications. Dragsten restated that these discussions are all predicated on the land use decisions, which is condition 1 on this list. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES CONSTITUTE A SUPERIOR PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY PUD AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 AND B-3 DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS AMENDED. Grittman noted that the motion language should be that the proposed uses "are consistent". MOTION AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES CONSTITUTE A SUPERIOR PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY PUD AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 AND B-3 DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS AMENDED BELOW: Recommended Staff Conditions agreed to by Applicant and adopted by Planning Commission: 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/ 12/07 • 1. All approvals are contingent on the outcome of the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments submitted by the applicant in April, 2007. 3. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan specific to this site, demonstrating readings not to exceed one footcandle at all property lines. 4. No exterior racking shall be permitted anywhere on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 117 parking stalls. In the event that parking becomes an issue on site, the City may require construction of all or a portion of these stalls. 6. Wall signage for the convenience store shall be reduced to not exceed 133 square feet. 8. Right -turn lanes shall be provided at all access locations on Chelsea Road. 11. No outdoor sales and display is permitted within the PUD without the request and review of a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. 17. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in his memo dated June 4, 2007. 18. The applicant shall verify the directional arrows and directional labels on all plans. Recommended Staff Conditions deleted by Planning Commission: 7. Only one access towards the east side of the north of Chelsea Road will be allowed. 10. The big box retail site plans shall be revised to include the use of pavers and scored concrete in pedestrian crossing areas and in handicap accessible areas of the parking surface. Pedestrian ramps shall also be provided for the entire PUD site as required by the City Engineer. 12. The entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, Block 1) shall be shown conceptually on all plans. 16. The cap of the proposed silo shall be white or cream in color, as opposed to orange. Recommended Staff Conditions to be resolved as part of Council action: 2. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed pylon sign so as not to exceed 200 square feet in area, nor 32 feet in height. 9. The temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road, just west of the Mills Fleet Farm building, shall be reconstructed as a permanent cul- de-sac as part of this project. 13 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/ 12/07 13. The fuel pumps at the motor fuel station shall be re -oriented to be perpendicular to Chelsea Road to provide more stacking space. 14. The applicant shall revise all elevations for the big box retail store to provide additional vertical details, roofline variations, and materials in contrasting, but coordinating colors. 15. The applicant shall revise the car wash design to provide alternate building materials with more visual detail, or relocate the car wash to Lot 2, Block 1. AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF 14 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 li THE B-4 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. Dragsten noted that the stated that the motion references B-4, but that the report references B-3. Grittman noted that the B-4 incorporates the standards and uses in the B- 3 District. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Dragsten stated that he believes these decisions are reflective that the Commission does want to see Mills come in, but also gives the staff direction for the site design. 5. Consideration of a request to call for a public hearing for the purpose of amending the Monticello Zoninia Ordinance for the creation of a Planned Unit Development District. Grittman provided an explanation of the staff report, stating that there was discussion about the possibility of creating a separate zoning district for the Mills project. This is an alternative to the PZM district, as the idea is that the City could essentially write a new zoning district for a particular piece of property. The City could relate performance standards and allowable uses to a specific site. Grittman stated that this allows the City to identify specific zoning for a specific development proposal. In that way, the City can tailor special conditions to a site. Grittman commented that these districts are often seen in redevelopment areas, where existing zoning doesn't fit well with redevelopment or the districts are too wide open in terms of use and standards. Dragsten asked if the City would designate areas PUD as on a zoning map. Grittman responded that not necessarily; rather, the City could use the designation on a case by case basis. Grittman stated that Mills may be one area for this designation, but not necessarily so. The advantage of a PUD district is that occasionally a request for a particular use may be suitable to a parcel, but may only be allowed by a broad district. However, perhaps the district allows other uses too broadly, and so PUD can allow only that use on that property. In that way, the city doesn't rezone and find that later the broader zoning isn't appropriate. Grittman stated that staff can provide more detail if the Commission would like to call for the public hearing. Dragsten posed the idea that if an area is zoned B-3, and an applicant meets criteria, then there is no reason to come in, but perhaps there are important areas in the City where there should be more review. Grittman agreed, indicated that some cities use PUD districts as a protection zone. However, it is seen more commonly case by case. Grittman stated that the other thing the City would want to consider is more finely tuning the zoning ordinance, which is 25 years old. Dragsten concurred, stating that he doesn't want to add layers of zoning, but to still protect the City. 15 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/12/07 • Hilgart asked if in this case, if Mills were to come forward and the City required rezoning to PUD there could be a condition relative to the use so that it would revert back if a similar use wasn't proposed. Grittman stated that the PUD district does give the City that control and authority. Grittman stated that some attorneys will say the City has much more discretion in rezoning over CUPS. Hilgart stated that PUD districts could work in residential areas as well. Grittman noted that if the ordinance was started from scratch, the City could have been much more thorough in the way the district was written. Grittman commented that further discussion on this item can be brought forward as part of the continuing discussion on the amendment to overall PUD ordinance. The Commissioners agreed to refrain from calling for a public hearing on the item. 6. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONNR VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Records ' ela Schumann 16