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.