Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-02-2007MINUTES CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 2°d92007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff Present: 1. Call to order. Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, Barry Voight William Spartz Brian Stumpf Angela Schuman, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman, NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Spartz. 2. Approvalg of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 4a', 2007. - - MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4', 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Dragsten requested an update on the status of the land use plan as item 9.and added a review of the City task list provided by the City Administrator for comment at the last meeting as item 10 4. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for the proposed River City Station, a commercial plat in a B-3 (Highwav Business) District, and a request for rezoning from B-3 (Highwav Business) to B-4 (Regional Business). Planner Holien presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is proposing a commercial plat consisting of 12 lots on an 18.29 acre site. The site is proposed to be platted as Lot 1-5 of Block 1 and Lots 1-7 of Block 2. The proposed lot sizes range from a minimum of .75 acres to a maximum of 2.48 acres. Holien 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 stated that Lot 6, Block 2 is the largest lot proposed at 2.3 S acres and will contain a detention pond on the north half of the site to accommodate stormwater. Holien reported that with the preliminary plat, the applicant is requesting vacation of a 6,093 square foot piece of right-of-way in the northeast corner of the site, at the intersection of Chelsea Road and Edmondson Avenue. The applicant is also proposing a slight adjustment to the existing lot line along the west boundary of the site. This adjustment results in vacation of a 2,933 square foot section of Cedar Street right-of-way. Additionally, the applicant is requesting rezoning from B-3, Highway Business to B-4, Regional Business. Holien indicated that the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial land uses, and the requested B-4 designation is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Holien explained that the purpose of the B-3 and B-4 Districts are identical, but the B-4 Zoning District allows for a wider variety of commercial uses. The site is bordered by land designated for commercial land uses to the north, south, and west. Holien stated that the B-4 District has no minimum lot area, lot width, or setback requirements. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot width of 122 feet, and a minimum lot size of .75 acres. While the applicant is requesting rezoning from B-3 to B-4, the B-3 District requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The applicant has exceeded the minimum requirement for the current zoning designation with all lots. Holien noted that no structures have been sited for the proposed lots. Holien commented that any future buildings would be evaluated at the time of development to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space for required parking and landscaping. In terms of access, Holien reported that primary access to the site is provided via a north -south street, 60 feet in width, ending in a cul-de-sac. This is proposed to be paved to approximately 32 feet in width. A right -turn lane onto Chelsea Road has also been provided for. Additional accesses are provided off Cedar Street. The applicant is proposing two shared drives off Cedar Street, extending east into the site. The width of these drives has not been specified. The applicant has also noted shared access at two locations off Edmondson Avenue, extending west into the site. Holien explained that internal access drives off the north -south street are anticipated, but have not been indicated on the plat. Conditional Use Permits for all shared access arrangements will be required at the time of development. As part of the plat, the applicant is proposing to dedicate the Chelsea Road easement currently running along the north side of the property to right-of-way. Holien stated at this time, no signage has been proposed as part of the Preliminary Plat. However, a monument sign easement has been noted in the northwest corner of the site. The easement is partially located within the City's drainage 2 Planning Commission Minutes—10/02/07 and utility easement and will need to be adjusted as signs are not allowed within the easement area. All future signage proposed for the site shall be required to comply with the ordinance and would be processed as a part of a separate application. Holien also recommended that an individual landscape plan be provided for each lot at the time that lot develops. Holien referred to the City Engineer's recommendations, which were included in the staff report and provided to the applicant. Holien stated that staff finds the plat is consistent with the performance requirements of the existing B-3 District, which are more restrictive than the requested B-4 zoning designation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Dragsten asked about the vacation of Edmonson. Holien stated that the applicant is working through details related to that for the City Council. Dragsten asked the purpose of the engineer's recommendation for changing the right of way width from 60' to 80'. Holien stated that the City Engineer had indicated that the City generally requires an 80' ROW. In this case, if the road were to be extended to also allow access to the south, the 80' width would be preferred. The City Engineer has talked with applicant's engineer on potential options. Dragsten stated his concern with not setting the width now would be with trying to sell lots. Hilgart commented that it may be likely that a user will come and buy multiple lots. He inquired if there is a similar plat like this in town. Holien replied that a replat would be needed to accommodate the combination or further splitting of lots. Dragsten noted that if the plat meets all the requirements, the configuration of the lots is up to the applicant. Grittman stated that one of the issues staff discussed with the applicants is that the commercial lots might be too small prior to users identifying what their needs are. Gabler asked if the alignment of the road shown includes where the existing pond is. Holien confirmed. Gabler asked if the applicant would fill the existing pond and build a new one. Holien stated that was correct. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. The applicant, Robert Lamont, Chelsea Road LLC, addressed the Commission. Lamont thanked the Commission for their consideration. Lamont stated that he had reviewed the comments from staff and the City Engineer, and realizes an approval is subject to comments and conditions. Lamont stated that he does object to the widening of the right of way to 80'. He stated that he would like to keep it at 60' and keep the cul-de-sac, as he feels the K Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 roadway size is adequate. Lamont requested that the Commission recommend allowing the 60' ROW, subject to the other conditions in Exhibit Z. Lamont stated that he is satisfied with outcome of the review process. He indicated that the time spent on the review is a reflection of the importance of this property and the pressure on this area for development. In terms of the zoning, staff recommended the B-4 zoning, as they believed it to be consistent with comp plan, more so now than in the past. Lamont indicated that the B-4's regional business purpose would seem to be consistent with potential future uses, and would have a positive effect on the surrounding land uses. He commented that he believes that the entire area will be a B-4 zoning district. Lamont noted that in discussing this plat with some of the surrounding land owners, they believe it will be a benefit to their properties. In regard to the lot size, Lamont explained that the configuration will allow him the ability to attract different size users. He stated that it is easy to envision twelve users, but it is harder to see how the lots could be combined for larger specific users. Lamont concluded by asking the Commission to recommend approval of the plat and rezoning. Voight asked Lamont about the property to the south, inquiring if he is perhaps 40 looking to acquire that piece in the future. Lamont stated that would only happen if he secured a major user for the site; but not for a development like this. Voight stated that it seems a larger user of both pieces is within the realm of possibility. In that case, it seems possible that the road will go through to the south. He inquired what Lamont's major objection is on the width. Lamont responded that he thinks the width is adequate given traffic flow through the site. Lamont referenced other streets that have 80' ROWs, such as School Boulevard, and stated that he doesn't think there will be that volume of traffic. He stated that it is also a matter of economics. The 60' ROW, which was taken out of the City's subdivision ordinance, allows for more saleable square footage. • Gabler inquired if perhaps some compromise in width might be acceptable. Hilgart stated that at some time the southern property will be developed. Grittman stated that if the southern property developed in a plat configuration similar to the one proposed, it would need the road to come through. For a big box arrangement, it may not. Grittman commented that it seems that the engineers have negotiated a compromise and it may be possible to develop some development agreement language that addresses the potential for the road to go through. Dragsten asked if all B-4 streets are 80'. Grittman stated that the current standard is 80' for new plats. 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 Grittman stated that he is going to assume that the engineer's position is that for a temporary cul-de-sac, 60' is adequate. However, if this road extends to the south, 80' would be needed. He indicated that he would be reluctant to say that some recommendation in the middle is acceptable. Dragsten commented that once the ROW is platted, he is unsure how widening of the ROW could even be accomplished. Lamont stated that he didn't think it is possible. Stumpf asked if the road will be private. Grittman replied that it would be public. Stumpf stated that if it is public, he would recommend an 80' ROW. Dragsten asked about the ownership and maintenance of the entrance monument. Lamont stated it will be a landscaped median. Schumann explained that the City has a required specification for medians within City right of way. She also noted that if no other provision is made in the development agreement, because the median is in the public ROW, the City would be required to maintain the median. In that case, she indicated that City would most certainly require the developer to assign maintenance to a common association through the development agreement. Dragsten referred to Hilgart's comment that Lamont may have a user who wants a larger lot. He inquired whether Lamont had considered fewer lots and then using outlots. Lamont stated that staff did bring that up, but this is the approach he would like to take. Hilgart asked if Lamont has any users. Lamont responded that he has no one signed. Hearing no other comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked for Commission consensus on road width. Gabler stated she would prefer to keep it at 80'. Hilgart stated that if the City knew it wasn't going through it might be different, but he preferred the 80'. Voight concurred, stating that he thought the number of accesses and turning movements may require the 80' ROW. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM B-3 TO B-4, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING DESIGNATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. Stumpf sought confirmation that the vacations would be considered separately. Schumann confirmed that they would go to the City Council. • MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIVER CITY STATION, SUBJECT TO A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open & Outdoor Storage in the B-3 District. Applicant: Olson Property Management. Chairman Dragsten asked for the reason for continuation. Grittman stated that there are storm water issues associated with this request and at this time, the applicant is working with the City Engineer to get these items resolved. Gabler noted that the applicant is already using the site for the requested purpose. Grittman stated that traditionally the City has delayed enforcement action for property owners who are working through the process to legalize their use. The City hasn't taken any specific action against them. Grittman stated that at some point, if the applicant continues to delay the item, the City will have to think differently about enforcement. At this point, the applicant is still making a good faith effort for proper application. Chairman Dragsten stated that he would prefer to continue for only one more month; after that the weather impacts the site. Grittman stated that staff would bring that message back to applicant. Gabler asked if Monticello is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the wetland. Grittman confirmed and explained that like any wetland, responsibility it split with the DNR. Gabler asked if the applicants were made aware of that. Grittman stated that the applicant is aware of the issues regarding stormwater drainage and the protected wetland. Drasgten stated that the building was built in the early 80's, prior to many of the new regulations. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN & OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT BY OLSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FOR ONE MONTH BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 Dragsten asked that it be made clear to the applicant that the request needed to come forward in November. 7. Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use Permit for Development Staize Planned Unit Development approval for a multi -tenant office complex, a commercial plat in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Quad Development. Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien indicated that Quad Development is seeking Preliminary Plat approval and a Conditional Use Permit for development stage Planned Unit Development for Phase II of a multi -tenant office complex. She noted that Phase I was approved by the City in August, 2007. The subject site is located on 4utlot A of the Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition, west of Wal-Mart and east of Autumn Ridge. The site is 4.5 acres in size an is zoned B-4, Regional Business. Holien reported that the applicant is proposing five office buildings. Development Stage PUD for Building Five was approved in August as part of Phase 1 of the project. The four remaining buildings are to be included in Phase II. The remaining four buildings proposed as part of Phase II are identical to what was reviewed at Concept Stage. The footprint of each building is proposed at 6,400 square feet (40' x 160') in area. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as Monticello Business Center 6t' Addition. Phase II is to be platted at Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 1. All four lots are proposed to be 50 feet by 170 feet, or 8,500 square feet in area. Holien stated that as the proposed buildings are consistent with what was reviewed at Concept Stage, the parking requirement for the site has not changed. The parking requirement for office uses is three spaces plus one space for each 200 square feet of building area. In determining the building area, 10% of the building is presumed to be reserved for utilities, hallways, bathrooms, and other facilities. The parking proposed for the site is 243 stalls. The applicant is requesting flexibility for the 5 remaining stalls as part of the PUD. Holien reported that the landscape plan is nearly identical to that approved with Phase I of the project. Five ornamental crabapple trees have been added to the center island, and additional landscaping is proposed at the base of the feature on the north side of the center island. These changes were made per the recommendation of the City at Concept Stage. Holien indicated that the applicant has proposed 51 overstory trees, satisfying the minimum requirement. The majority of the overstory trees are proposed along the east property line, to provide a buffer between the site and the townhome development to the east. Sod is proposed between the buildings and on the back side of each building. All parking lot islands and building foundations will also be landscaped with shrubs and perennials. 7 Planning Commission Minutes—10/02/07 In conjunction with the minimum landscaping requirements, a landscaped buffer yard is also required between the site and the townhomes to the east. Holien stated that the conflict in uses between high density residential development and commercial development is classified as Class B, or moderate. Therefore, a minimum landscaped yard 20 feet in width containing at least 80 plant units for each 100 feet of property line are required. The applicant is responsible for planting one half of this buffer yard. As stated above, the majority of the trees proposed are in the required buffer yard area. The applicant has provided 540 plant units over approximately 700 feet of property line, exceeding the minimum requirement. A photometric plan has been submitted for the site, Holien indicated. This plan indicates that no glare exceeding one footcandle will spill over onto the adjacent right-of-way or adjacent properties. The maximum footcandle reading at the centerline of School Boulevard is 0.2. The maximum footcandle reading along the east property line, adjacent to Autumn Ridge, is 0.2. The maximum footcandle reading along the south property line is 1.0 As a condition of approval, Holien stated that any wall mounted lighting shall require a full cutoff fixture. For signage, Holien explained the applicable ordinance and stated that each of the one story buildings is allowed 181 square feet of signage. The applicant is proposing approximately 178 square feet of wall signage for the building. The wall signage proposed is within the parameters of the ordinance, and is identical to that approved with the Concept Stage PUD application. The two-story building is allowed 219 square feet of wall signage. The applicant is proposing seven signs each 31 square feet in area for a total of 217 square feet of wall signage per building. The signage proposed is within the parameters of the ordinance and consistent with that approved at Concept Stage. In addition to wall signage, Holien stated that the applicant is proposing two monument signs, one in the northeast corner of the site and one in the northwest corner of the site. These signs will contain placards for up to six tenants. Said signs are each 96 square feet in area and 15.33 feet in height, for a total of 192 square feet of signage. The speed limit on School Boulevard is 45 miles per hour, allowing a freestanding sign up to150 square feet in area and 26 feet in height. The applicant exceeds the maximum allowance by 42 feet. Flexibility is being requested on the signage requirement as part of the PUD. The applicant is not proposing any pylon signs for the site, and the proposed wall signage is under the allotted height. Therefore, this flexibility may be appropriate. She indicated that all signage proposed is identical to that approved at Concept Stage. Holien discussed the site's access and circulation, stating that the site has one primary access point extending south from School Boulevard. The access is 40 feet in width, excluding the island, with adequate space for turn lanes. All Planning Commission Minutes—10/02/07 internal drive lanes are proposed at 24 feet in width, wide enough to is accommodate two-way traffic. In response to Concept Stage items, the applicant has revised drive aisle width between the northernmost parking stalls and the proposed "feature" from 50 feet to approximately 30 feet, per staff recommendation. Holien noted that reducing the drive aisle width in this location provided an opportunity to increase the amount of green space on the site, add additional plant units in the center island, and will assist in guiding traffic circulation. Pedestrian access will be accommodated by a concrete sidewalk running along the front of each building. Holien explained that crosswalks are proposed to connect the east side of the site to the west side of the site. Crosswalks are also proposed to connect the southernmost building to the remainder of the site and the center plaza. At the direction of the City, the applicant has extended the sidewalk proposed in front of Building One and Building Two to connect with the sidewalk along School Boulevard. Holien reported that the applicant has submitted elevations for the four buildings proposed, which have been slightly revised from Concept Stage, addressing concerns of the City. Vertical details have been added to the back side of each building at the direction of the City. The two-story buildings are of a similar design, revised per staff direction at Concept Stage. Three detached trash enclosures are proposed on site, one each on the south, east, and west sides of the site. The proposed materials for these structures have not been provided. Staff recommends that all trash enclosures be required to match the color and materials of the principal structures. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and all recommendations of the engineer have been added as part of Exhibit Z. Holien stated that she could answer any questions related to the staff report. However, the public hearing would be held on October 22na Dragsten asked to have color elevations of the buildings made available for the 22n , as they are important to the review of these projects. Dragsten asked about the revised access arrangement. Holien responded that the previous width, at 50', allowed for too many movement options for motorists. By reducing the width, it eliminates those potential conflicts and allows for additional plantings. Dragsten asked if the reduced width would create problems for delivery trucks. Grittman responded that the 30' width is typical and is sufficient to accommodate trucks. The City hasn't experienced a significant problem with that in the past. Dragsten asked about the proposed grading in terms of crossing onto adjacent properties. Holien stated that question might be more appropriate to ask the applicant. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 10/02/07 feGabler asked about the requirement for another hydrant. She asked if commercial buildings have to have sprinklers. Holien stated that these buildings are within the parameters which allow them not to sprinkle. Anderson stated that the sprinkling requirement is based on the type of structure and the area around the structure. By not sprinkling these, the fire department is asking for the additional hydrant. • Dragsten asked for clarification on the difference in pavement depths for the drive aisles. Grittman clarified that the depths might be to accommodate delivery vehicles. It was noted that no action was needed, as the public hearing and final action will occur on the 22na 8. Consideration to review an update reaardinR the illumination of downtown suns. Holien indicated that a memo addressing the illumination for projecting signs had been prepared and was included in the packet. Essentially, projecting signs are required to be illuminated from the exterior. Projecting signs should also be considered wall sign for this purpose. 9. Comprehensive Plan. Schumann explained that although it seemed as though the process in completing the plan had slowed, in reality staff had received and revised two drafts of the plan. It was felt that the first drafts needed much more content and revision before it was appropriate to bring them forward. She stated that the revisions will hopefully lead to a document that better reflects the directives provided through the neighborhood and task force meetings. 10. Task List Dragsten referred to the task list provided by the City Administrator at the last meeting. Dragsten asked if any of the other Commissioners had any comment. Commissioner Voight responded that he had forwarded his comments directly on to Administrator O'Neill. Dragsten stated that he would like the amendment of the R-1, R-1 A and R-2 districts to be a priority. Schumann responded that the task list groups all of the potential zoning amendments together under a potential zoning ordinance re -write. The draft comprehensive plan actually cites the complete revision of the zoning ordinance as an implementation strategy needed to support the comp plan objectives. 10 Planning Commission Minutes—10/02/07 • • Dragsten asked if it is reasonable to re -write the entire ordinance, rather than t to take on individual items. Grittman stated it is reasonable and is actually y a very effective way to go through the ordinance. One of the keys will be to talk about is the structure of the ordinance. Grittman stated that he would recommend a structural change of the current ordinance in order to make it clearer for users. Grittman explained that the current ordinance has been cobbled together in parts over 30 years. It was developed based on a 20-year old model. Going through it in an all -encompassing manner is actually is a good idea, as it would be very difficult to do piece by piece. A piecemeal approach wouldn't result in a well - functioning ordinance. Dragsten asked if the re -write would be a workshop Grittman stated that the City would do a series of meetings. Depending on the volume, it may take a series of workshops. At some point, the Commission had talked about having a second meeting as an option, at which time the ordinance re -write could be taken in steps. 11. Adjourn MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 11