Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 10-04-2005Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY COMMISSION HILGART TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE CUP FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE. I. The applicant shall provide proof that there will be no substantial contlict in the operating hours of the buildings who are proposing to share parking facilities. 2. All parties involved in the joint parking agreement shall execute a contract approved by the City Attorney and filed with the County Recorder. 3. Applicant shall propose an alternate parking lot configuration for the new building that would provide better circulation and drainage, subject to City staff review and approval. 4. The landscape plan must be revised to show the required number of plantings for the overall site as well as the residential bufferyard, subject to City staff's review and approval. 5. The applicant must submit plans showing the proposed locations and dimensions of any outdoor storage, if any, as well as the location and screening materials for trash enclosures, subject to City staff approval. 6. Prior to consideration of a final plat, a lighting plan must be submitted compliant with regulations outlined in Section 3-2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7.The applicant shall submit a signage plan compliant with Section 3-9.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8 All grading, drainage and utilities plans and easements are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. Recommendations of other City Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI.Y. 10. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a remlest for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conccpt Stag,e Planned Unit Development for a 372 unit multi- and sinl-':Ie-familv residential develot1lnent. Applicant: Ocello, LLC O'Neill reviewed the staff report, noting the site location near Jefferson Coml11ons, between c0l111nercial and residential property. O'Neill explained that a small piece of the site is designated within the guide plan as commercial. O'Neill noted that the boundaries of the COl11p plan guide map arc not necessarily strict zoning boundaries. However, the Commission will need to determine if the proposed use is consistent with the comp plan. Mike Gail', engineer for MFRA, addressed the Coml11ission representing applicant Ocello, LLC. Gail' stated that this plan represents a transition from residential uses within the proposed Poplar Hill developnlent, to commercial and trailer park uses. Gair recognized that the current applicant is f()I" concept review, with lnore steps to follow. They have also incorporated the 2100 feet of frontage along trailer park, and provided open space and park under the power line area. Gair 12 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PUD BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM TI IE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH TilE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRACiTSEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for a Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition: Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development to Allow a Drivc-in Convenience Food Establishment. Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, Car Wash, .Joint Parking and Drives, Open and Outdoor Storage, and a Retail Commercial Development and a Variance to Parking Requirements in the B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: IRET Properties O'Nei II reviewed the staff report for the appl ication, stating that the appl icants arc seeking a development stage PUD, preliminary plat and related variance request. In outlining the comments from the report, O'Neill noted the relationship of the Oakwood access alignments with the McDonald's site. The developer has worked through thcse options and this plan represents the best alternative. O'Neill stated that the one minor problenl on the site from a staff perspective is parking. The parking is sufficient for the Holiday and Wendy's PUD, however more is supplied on the Holiday side than the Wendy's side, which staff believes lllay pose a problem for users. As pm1 of the PUD, O'Neill explained that the COlllmission can grant approval of cross-parking as long as it is functional. In terms of consistency with the original concept stage PUD for this part of the site, O'Neill noted that this plan docs incorporate the central through drivc. The request for preliminary plat is needed to simplify the land sale for the Wendy's site. O'Neill explained that the applicants are also seeking to purchase additional Cedar Street right-of-way. The right-of way on Highway 25 is public land, and might be in control of the state. As far as access, there is a right turn in only at the access point closest to Highway 25 and full movement access across from McDonald's. O'Neill indicated that Exhibit Z outlines additional concerns, including the need for a complete sign package. O'Ncill cited that as critical, as there is currently no cohesive sign package that detail the entire PUD. Staff would recommend approval subject to the sign package coming back to the Commission. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. A representative for IRET Properties, made himself avai lablc for questions from the Commission. He explained that Holiday and Wendy's also had representation to answer morc speci fic questions. The IRET representative stated that they had been working with the City to lllake the whole block as a unit. Victor Sacco, Holiday Companies, reviewed the items listed in Exhibit Z. Specifically, Sacco asked the Conullission to consider thc removal of item 3, which requires the construction of future parking at an earl ier time. Sacco stated that th is is not possible as the appl icant doesn't own that propcrty. Sacco stated that they have accomlllodated Wcndy's employee parking behind Holiday. lie noted that Wcndy's has also reduced the size of their building to increase there park i ng. 16 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 6. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City Council, in approving the variance for Denny Heckel's' Kia pylon sign, requested that staff bring forward an amendment to address pylon signage for large properties along the interstate. Attached to this report is a draft amendment that would allow for pylon signs in these areas based on the amount of freeway frontage, rather than the number of street frontages. There arc a few communities that regulate pylon signage in this manner, however these are part of a very small minority. This section was amended in 2001 to permit a second freestanding sign. This amendment would use 300 feet spacing as the standard along the freeway, rather than a fixed number of signs. The Council expressed concern that business owners along the freeway would not have adequate business exposure without such an amendment. The ordinance (Section 3-9 IE] 4.g.) would be amended as follows: g) In the B-3 Zoning District only, certain parcels may be allowed to construct a second multiple freestanding sign~ on the property when the following conditions are complied with: i. The property directly abuts Interstate 94 and one other collector (or higher) status street. ii. The property in question is no less than two (2) acres in area. iii. The second No freestanding sign shall be located fie closer than three hundred (300) feet from the fi..Fsf nearest freestanding sign on the same property. iv. With the exception of the freeway frontage, Gonly one ofthe-tWe freestanding signs may be located within any yard (front, rear, or side) of the property. This clause shall be interpreted to mean that each sign shall be required to have a separate local roadway as its primary exposure. v. Where two or more freestanding signs are allowed, the sign~ that fronts on the road~ which serves as the primary access shall be of a monument design, with a maximum height of ten (10) feet and a maximum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Holiday Stationstores and Wendy's are requesting a 57' high pylon sign. Holiday Stationstores and Wendy's have revised their proposed plan to include the pylon sign design as well as other additions they have made to their respective proposed facilities. Changes to the proposed Holiday Stationstore include adding additional architectural features such as adding brick to the canopy columns, recessing the canopy lights and changing the canopy fascia colors. Further, Holiday will add significant amounts of additional landscaping on the proposed Holiday site as well as the MNDOT right of way located on the comer of Highway 25 and Oakwood Drive. Holiday is also open to work with Staff, if it is desired and allowed, to design a "Welcome to Monticello" signage feature that can also be added to the existing MNDOT right of way at Highway 25 and Oakwood Drive. Wendy's has agreed to add significant landscaping to its original plan. The subject development is situated at Interstate 94 and Highway 25. The Interstate orientation, accessibility and visibility are critical to the success of the development. Both retailers have been consistent with their desire to have signage that is visible from greater distances due to the nature of this location. The subject property is primarily an Interstate location catering to motorist traveling on Interstate 94. A 57' high pylon sign already exists on subject property. The existing pylon sign pole is not adequate to support the proposed dual signage package proposed by Holiday and Wendy's. Residential development is occurring near this site, but is not sufficiently established to support the investment. The 57' pylon sign will help customers identify earlier the specific location of the Holiday and Wendy's location and aid in avoiding unsafe traffic maneuvers for motorist exiting Interstate 94. The sign age proposal consolidates 2 separate sign locations into one. Competitors have 57' pylon signs. Competitors in the vicinity have similar site orientation to the Interstate and a similar customer target base as the applicant. Property situated further from the Interstate than the subject, have been granted permission to construct a 57' pylon sign. Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our proposal.