The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 04-02-2002 . " _J. 4. . 5. 6. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - April 2, 2002 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, John Glomski and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held March I L 2002. the minutes of the regular meeting held March 12, 2002, and the minutes of the spcciallllceting held March 25, 2002. Consideration or adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for special home occupation permit allowing a salon in the R-2 residential district. Applicant: David Gassier Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval allowing commercial condominiums in the I-IA zoning district. ^pplicant: Allied Propeliies & Management. LLC. 7. Public I Icaring - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stage development allowing residential uses on the first noor in the CCD district. ^pplieant: Hans Hagen Ilomes 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the lot width in order to allow for a simple subdivision creating two lots from one parcel. Applicant: Church of St. Henry 9. Consideration of calling for a special meeting to interview applicants to till vacant planning commission position. 10. Adjourn . - 1- . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday.. March t t, 2002 6:00 PM Members Present: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Roy Popilek, Robbie Smith and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Statf: .Jeff O'Neill L Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., noting the absence of Council Liaison Clint Herbst. Mr. Herbst arrived at 6:30 p.m. L Public HearinQ: Consideration of a request for a Development Sta!!e Planned Unit Development and Preliminarv Plat for Vine Place, a 26 unit townhouse proiect. Applicant: Front Porch Associates. . Jeff O'Neill. Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff report advising that Front Porch Associates had applied for Preliminary Plat approval and Development Stage PUD approval for Vine Place, a 26 unit townhouse project at Minnesota Street and West 6\h Street. The project includes the replacement of the Vine Street right-of-way with a private central street. and the relocation of old 7th Street along a new public street alignment. no\V proposed to be called 6 ~/2 Street. A portion of Minnesota Street is also proposed to be vacated to conform its alignment with the constructed part of the roadway. O'Neill noted that the project was pushed forward to this special meeting due to the applicant's time frame with purchasing a portion of the property and also due to the fact that the regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for March 5 was delayed to March 12 due to the caucus held on March 5. O'Neill also stated that the applicant has found that he does not have as much land available as he had initially thought. adding that it appears to be too much on too small of a parcel. From a staff standpoint it was noted that they really liked the original concept and that it fit well in the older part of town. O'Neill added that they do understand the problem with space and Cyr's need to get as many units in as possible to make the project work. He noted that to further complicate matters. the project requires vacation of Vine Street where Ruff Auto has placed a fence and stores vehicles, which need to be moved. The City Attorney advised that it is in the City's legal rights to have the fence and vehicles moved at the o\vners expense, although O'Neill stated this could still cause a delay. In summary, the statfreport noted a number of issues raised by this plan that the City should consider closely. The PUD process is sought to permit departure from typical zoning requirements such as private street access, front building line and building . Special Planning CommissiOIl Minutes - 03/11/02 . separation, side building separation, private street \vidth. visitor parking supply, Alley (pri vate street) width, and long. one-\vay alley design. turning movements from garages. setbacks from public streets. and curb separation from adjoining property. Some of these departures may be justifiable based on design considerations, however as noted. the submission packet docs not include architecture or landscaping to help with this consideration. Other departures raise functional issues. The lack of visitor parking and the difficulty with turning movements out of the garages onto the alleys would cause operational problems that could not be overcome later, and would be more than mere "inconvenience". Although some of the design ideas were generated at a concept level. the changes from the concept plan to this stage have negated many of the advantages that staff believed to be a part of the project. These include building sizes, circulation changes. and a number of dimensional issues. It was again noted that Cyr needs to refer back to the original plan that the Planning Commission approved initially. Chair Frie stated that the Planning Commission most likely has the same concerns as the City Planner regarding the project. Frie noted again that the submission packet did not provide building or landscape plans which is a concern as the development stage process requires them. Frie questioned Mr. Cyr how this special meeting for a public hearing came about with the above noted concerns not addressed. The commissioners had the same concerns as Chair Frie. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr. Front Porch Associates. stated that if he had known earlier \\hat the recommendation by Steve Grittman was, he would not have gone forward with the special meeting. Jon Bogart Bogart Pederson & Associates. addressed some of the concerns stated. Cyr added that the density is the same as \vhat was originally proposed, but that he had increased the size of the units. I Ie also stated that he thought he had submitted architectural drawings and a landscaping plan at an earlier date. Cyr stated that visitor parking is designed to be in conjunction with Vine St. becoming a one way. tenant parking in garages as well as behind the units. and 6 Y; Street also being used llH" parking. Cyr stated that the alley disconnect from the original plan was to try to make it more attractive to buyers. but that it can be easily changed. Cyr added that he met with Bret Weiss and city staff previously, and had thought that this was the plan that they had agreed on. O'Neill noted that statThad not received the plans from Cyr in time to review and provide comments any earlier. . Frie asked if Cyr agreed that this plan is an entirely ditTerent proposal than what they had viewed at concept level. but Cry did not agree. He also asked if Cyr felt that all the items mentioned as concerns \vere changes from the concept plan and did Cyr make the changes in order to make the project more feasible. Cyr stated some changes were made for feasihility such as the size of the units. Cyr again stated that the changes evolved from the concept plan when he met \\ith the City Planner and Engineer. and he thought they 'Nere on the right rack. As t~ll' as deviating from the concept plan. he did not feel that \vas the case. O'Neill added that he felt it was basically the same as the concept plan as well. but ..., Srecial Planning. Commission Minutes - 03/11/02 . hL: kit thL:y nL:L:cbl mon: time to work with stall and Cyr to make the project work. Bogart added that he kit the comments stated in the report rellected from Grittman' s thoughts after the meeting \vith City Engineer. Grittman and staff. Bogart also added that he had not seen the comments unti I Monday. Cyr had other ideas of how to alleviate the concerns mentioned. and added that another bctor that brought them to this special meeting \vas a time factor. He stated that the TIF district has to be certified by March 26 and therefore the special meeting was called. Bogart also agreed that had he known earlier that these were the recommendations they would have worked on the plan to make it acceptable for this meeting. Frie asked if the opportunity is still there to get on track prior to the City Council meeting on March 25th and O'Neill stated that it was up to Cyr. . Chair Frie closed the public hearing. O'Neill stated the best way to get the project back on track is to present it again at a special meeting prior to the City Council meeting on March 25. There was discussion of possibly waiting until the regular meeting on April 2nd but Cyr stated it was criti<.:al that the City Council ccrtify the TIF district on March 25. O'Neill agreed that it would be critical for the City Council to know what the project will be. prior to them certi fyi ng the district. It was noted that the I-I RA approved the TI F at a previous meeting where he did mention some possible changes to the plan. but that they had not l"lmnally seen any changes. Frie asked if the amount of TIF approved by the HRA was satisfactory as it was based on a previous concept plan and Cyr stated that there is a concern with additional stonn sewer \vhich added about $50,000 to the project over what was lirst anticipated, and that issue has not been resolved \vith the HRA. O'Neill added that he relt Cyr could still close on his property with confidence. A I'vlOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE TIlE PUBLIC (IEARING TO A SPI::CIAL MEETING Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 6:00 PM ON MARCI-I 25.2002. TO ADDRESS THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT RF:QUEST. ROY POPILEK SLCONDF!) TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There \vas further discussion that the special meeting is being held assuming that the issues mentioned in the report are addressed. 3. Adiourn A l'vIOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING AT 6AO PM. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . R('corder 3 . . . Members: Staff: MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday -March 12,2002 7:00 P.M. Dick Frie. Robbie Smith. Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst JefT (YNeiIL Fred Patch and Steve Grittman I. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM. Chair Frie advised that item 12 on the agenda had been pulled. 2. Approval of the minutes of the re!..!ular meetin!..! held februarv 5. 2002. " J. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE TI-lE MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HELD FEBRUARY 5, 2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MO'fION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Consideration of add in!..! items to the agenda. Robbie Smith asked about Kens' Service Station located on East Broadway regarding the storage of cars parked there. This was added as item number 14. Chair Frie asked about staff policy regarding returning phone calls to the general publ ic. added as Item 14B. Chair Frie asked the determiningbctors on posting road restrictions - Fred Patch advised. Chair Frie asked for an update on the Mielke project. added as item 14C. Chair Frie asked for an update regarding the special meeting held the previous night and if the City Council ha~i reviewed that item. O'Neill stated that the City Council was updated, but they will not review until the March 25, 2002 meeting. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public I-Iearin!,! - Consideration of a re(lUest for a 28' variance to the si?n ordinance height requirement. Applicant: Joel Pettit/Amoco John Glomski. planner. provided the staff report noting the applicant's request for a 28' variance to the 32'height limit designated tl)r a pylon sign in the B-3 district adjacent to a Freeway or ExpITss\vay. The request for the variance is in essence a request to continue Planning Commission Minutes ~ 03/12102 . the existing lawful nonCOnf(mllity in height standard allotted for the Amoco sign, currently at 60', The pylon sign's height would remain at 60' \vhile the image on the sign f~lce would change from the ,. Amoco" logo to the "BP" trademark, ^ property owner seeking a variance must justify that the variance is necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property, and that there is a physical hardship in meeting the basic zoning regulations. In this case, the applicant argues that the use relics heavily on its visibility to interstate traffic, therefore limiting its sign height to 32' will be detrimental to its business, "rhe applicant also thinks that limiting the sign height will hinder its ability to compete with other competitors (Super America, Burger King) in the area. which have 6C)' signs. Staff understands the importance of interstate traffic to businesses, which is why land with interstate exposure is so highly sought after. Staff doesn't feeL however that land or businesses set back from the freeway should accomplish its exposure through the heightening of its signs. Last of aiL the motoring public is very t~llniliar with the Business identi fication signs placed in the right of way by MnDOT. \vhich lists the various businesses at the next freeway interchange. It is the view of City staff that these signs do a sufficient job at telling L.c motoring public what is available at the next exit ramp. Freeway oriented businesses such as this should rely on this signage rather than huge pylons to note their presence. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bruce Schwartzman, architect working with BPI Amoco, stated that they arc basically proposing to take the existing oval shaped sign and replace it \\ith a square design having the new "BP" logo. He questioned the staff report where it relates to structural altering and stated that they feel they are not altering. only updating. He also stated there are only about 6 existing signs of that height in place at this time and he felt these should be grandt~lthered in. He doesn't feel that amount of density is detrimental. The property is set off the highway and the applicant's concern is that not everyone sees the business identilication signs, and therefore the need for the larger sign. He is concerned that being off the highway and lowering the sign they will have no visibility, which he feels would be a loss of business. Joel Pettit applicant stated that particularly from the northbound traffic the sign would be not visible, and I11ntorists \\ould see the SA sign nnly. Roger PribyL manager of Super America, asked if the intent of the City is to only allow sign heights of 32 feel. and O'Neill stated that is the way the code reads. O'Neill also stated that some signs \\ere allowed to remain at the 6()' height after the storm in '97 due to various circumstances. and now the way the code is written is that if a business changes O\\I1ershi p, logo. or structure, the sign would need to be in conformance with the cxisting ordinance. [f they were using the same sign and just maintaining it they would be allowed to keep it at it's existing heighL Fred Patch noted the applicant wanted to use . 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . the same cahinet that exists now. this \vould then contlwl11. Chair Frie then closed the puhlic hearing. Frie asked the applicant if what caused the request for the variance was due to new ownership and Schwartzman stated Amoco was bought out by "BP" and the dealers have the option to change over. although it is still Amoco gasoline. The brighter. cleaner look is part of the new image. lie stated they would keep the same square footage of the sign and that there would be no text other than the "gp" letters up in the corner. Frie asked if they would be interested in withdrawing their application for a variance after hearing from Fred Patch. Building OfficiaL and Schwartzman stated that it is a possibility. but that 'oSP" would prefer to replace the Amoco image with the new logo and shape. He again stated that the proposed :;ign is smaller than what is existing. but Frie stated that it is still a different shape. Frie stated they would rather work with applicant to keep the sign height and conform. Patch advised the procedure for measuring sign heights in that they are measured from the center of the nearest lane of traffic, which for this business it would be Highway 25 or Oakwood Lane. Patch added that he felt this was more of a maintenance issue since the Amoco image is being dissolved. . Smith noted that the business is even closer now to being on the Interstate as it is just off the new exit ramp which is now closer to the applicant's business. There was also discussion as to where they felt the decision point was for motorists on the freeway. Some felt it was once they exited the freeway and others felt it was prior to that. therefore the importance of the visibility of the sign. Patch asked the applicant ifhe felt that the sign would be better if it were lower. stating that it would be easier for a motorist to see when on the exit ramp if it were lower rather than 60 feet. Schwartzman agreed that at that location it would make sense to have it lower, hut they arc interested in 1-94 visibility. Pribyl stated that he felt motorists on the freeway rely a lot on traveling credit cards and they may not see the business identification sign and therefore miss the exit. He believes that the p6int of purchase is not at that intersection but before or after. Frie advised that the applicant has the control over this sign by either keeping it at the same height and use the same oval shape. or bring it into conformance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON TilE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT NO HARDSHIP HAS BEEN SHOWN TO JUSflFY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. AND THAT GRAN'llNG THE VARIANCE WOULD GO AGAINST TI-IE INTENT OF THE CODE. ROBBIE Srv!lTH SECONDED THE MOTION. M(YlION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROD DRAGSTEN OPPOSING. . " J . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03112/02 free! Patch advised the appl icant that if they were to remove the point from the top of the ex.isting sign, this would be considered maintenance. The applicant stated he was in agreement. 6. Public Hearinl; - Consideration of approvim~ concept stal!e, development stace planned unit development: and consideration of approval of a conditional use permit allowim~ an auto bod v facilitv and associated storace. Applicant: Pro!!ressive Development & Const. Co. Inc./Shawn Weinand Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report. Progressive Development and Construction Company is requesting approval of a Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction ofa 32,730 square foot multi-tenant commercial building and 11.330 square foot mixed use building upon a 8.9 acre site located south of Interstate 94 between Chelsea Road West and Marvin Road. The processing of a planned unit development is necessary to accommodate the encroachment of the use within the ahutting Marvin Road right-or-way and auto-repair uses within the multi-tenant building. The subject parcel is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Grittman advised the adjacent uses and stated that the proposed use is considered compatible with existing uses in the area, as "veil as consistent with the comprehensive plan. Grittman stated that to accommodate the placement of a portion of the development within the Marvin Road right-or-way and autcHelated uses upon the property. the processing of a PUO/Conditional Use Permit is necessary. He also stated that the PUO process was prompted by a request for tlexibility from a number of provisions of the Ordinance. speci fically the appl icant requested that the location of an off-street parking area within a public ROW (Marvin Road) be allowed, a 10' principal building setback li'om a public street ROW be allowed, and that auto repair hlcilities within the B-3 district be allowed. Grittman advised the performance standards stating that the proposed building failed to meet the 30 foot setback from Marvin Road. and also that portions of the Lot 1 parking area lie within the Marvin Road right-of-way. I-Ie also noted that the future development of Outlot 13 \vould require deviations from the Ordinance such as off-site parking and a zero lot line building setback. Access is to be from three points along Chelsea Road West and access to several properties north of the subject site is to be provided w'ithin a driveway to be constructed within the Marvin Road right-of-way. Access related issues should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the 01'1'- street parking requirements would be satisfied. although he did state that if all off~street parking spaces arc provided upon Lot I. it is recommended that cross parking and access 4 Planning Commission Minutes.. 03/12/02 . easements be created and recorded with proposed Lot I, Block 1 to serve the off-street parking demands of the "mixed use" building proposed upon Outlot B. Grittman added that all off-street parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Grittman advised a concern with parking area circulation stating a one-way circulation route had been proposed on the north and west sides of the Lot I building. While the one-way route within the service area is considered acceptable, the one-way route within the westerly parking area is likely to present an inconvenience. To avoid such inconvenience. it is recommended that a two-way circulation route be provided. Also to be noted is that the two building area summaries for Lot I provided on the site plan are not consistent. Whereas a total "mixed use" allocation of 10.120 square feet is identificd on the building illustration, a total of 10,110 square feet is listed in the summary table provided. This should be corrected. . Grittman pointed out on the submitted site plan that the proposed Lot I commercial building is to be located along the northern boundary of the lot L directly south of the existing pond. As presently sited. the building's loading area would border the wetland and be highly visible to passersby on Chelsea Road West. "1'0 provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance from the roadway (and better exploit the wetland as an area amenity), consideration should be given to relocating the building to the east side of the property along Marvin Road. Existing Marvin Road would then serve as an "alley" of sorts for commercial development to the cast and west. In response to the cited building orientation concern. a design alternative has been prepared. The design alternative attempts to exploit the nearby pond as a site amenity and screen service activities by locating the building on the eastern half of the property. It is hoped that this alternative can be used as a reference in the preparation of an improved design concept. Grittman stated that 22,620 square feet of the multi-tenant building is to be devoted to aLlto-related uses and the B-3 zoning district lists auto repair and outside storage as a conditional use. but such activity can be accommodated by the processing of the planned unit development and yvould need to be handled individually via a conditional use permit. Regarding the loading area located on the north side of the structure. south of the existing pond. there appears to be ample area for the maneuvering of service vehicles but the loading an:a is visible from Chelsea Road to the north. As a condition of PUD approval. the loading area should be screened from view of the adjacent Chelsea Road right-of... . 5 Planning COllllllissionl'vlinlltes - 03/12/02 . \vay. ^ loading area for the future mixed use building on the southern portion of the site has not been depicted at this time. Grittman stated that a variety of plantings have been proposed on site. Generally speaking. the proposed landscape plan is considered well conceived. To add visual interest to the proposed buildings however. it is suggested that some plantings be added at the perimeter of the proposed Lot I building. Considering the long-term function of Marvin Road (to provide secondary access to minimal properties). the encroachment of a private driveway is acceptable provided a specific license to allow such encroachment is issued. As a condition of PUO approvaL the applicant should receive permission from nearby property ovvners that have no other access regarding the proposed use of Marvin Road. . Grittman aclvised that the building materials proposed comply with ordinance requirements and materials associated with the multi-use building will be addressed at a future point. The building height satisfies the maximum 2-story height requirement and the grading drainage and utility plans submitted should be subject to revievv and comment by the City Engineer. Trash handling/recycling locations are proposed on the north side of the Lot 1 huilding and Grittman advised that the City prefers that trash receptacles he attached to the principal building or stored indoors. Therefore. a condition of PUO approval shall be that all trash handling and recycling equipment be attached to or stored w-ithin the principal buildings. He also advised that a lighting plan has been submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the Building Official. Grittman advised that a sign plan had been submitted and as a condition of PUD approvaL it will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the sign ordinance. He also stated that the outside storage area associated with the auto body operation is located behind the auto body shop and some distance from Chelsea Road. It represents a small percentage of the property and makes useable space out of the odd shaped/remnant portion of the buildable portion of the lot. It will be surrounded by an opaque fence as requit:ed by ordinance. The landscape plan also shows tree plantings adjacent to the outside storage area. There \vas discussion as to why Marvin Road would not be vacated and if this was due to future development. G-rittman advised that there are property owners where this would eliminate their frontage. It was also stated that there are no immecliate plans for improvement to Marvin Road. Weinand will be paying the full cost to improve the area which is to the benefit of area property owners. Chair hie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand. applicant. stated that they have considered reversing the building but it does not layout as well. They do hav"e nice . 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . showroom space and stated that it was critical that there be exposllre to Chelsea Road. He also advised that Gould Chevrolet running parallel to the back of this proposed building would be better. Weinand advised that there is an odd shape to the property and they did not \vant to expose the storage area to Chelsea Road and they still need to maintain easements. He also stated that they spent a fair amount of time "vith people directly affected by the plan and that they will do additional landscaping which will benefit them as well. He noted that they are trying to follow standards that the car dealerships have chosen. and to compliment as well. He advised their reason for pushing the project forward with concept and development stage is due to the large size of the project and also getting their tenants in on a timely manner. especially the auto body due to their equipment. etc.. advising that this is a new body shop. Weinand stated the two major businesses that this project affects are Ford and the Health Club. and that they were in favor of the project as it "vmild be cleaning up Marvin Road and would also gi ve the Health Club additional parking. Weinand advised that there is an agreement with them and have written up licensing to that effect. . Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Smith asked if staff was in agreement "vith the proposed screening of the outside storage and Grittman stated they did not pick that up at first review but it seems to be favorable; also stating possibility of a block wall along the back of the pond area.. Weinand stated it was possible and that they may have to cut down a portion of Marvin Road. They questioned Weinand regarding his input on the request for two- way traffic versus the one-\vay initially proposed and he stated they will work with staff to change that. He stated that their focus was to have two- way traffic to the middle which would also help Olson Electric with their entrance. They also felt their parking was getting a little tight. but would work with that as well. Frie added that item G of the conditions should be removed from the list of conditions requested in the report. and to replace it with ..proper screening and landscaping of outside storage". Dragsten asked if the applicant had reviewed all of the conditions and Weinand stated they had and they are all workable. Dragsten asked Grittman about item one and Grittman advised that this was due to encroachments to the right-of- way. Popilek asked about sufticient parking and Grittman stated it appears to be adequate. they do have potential for additional tenants and may need more parking at that time. No issues with setbacks due to the PUD. ROY POPILFK MADE A MCJfION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PL.ANNED UNIT DEVEL.OPMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IS COMPATIBLE WITl-I EXISTING LAND USES IN n-IE AREA. SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND . 7 . g. h. I. . J. k. I. Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 IS CONSISTENT win, THE CITY'S USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. A tvvo-vvay circulation route be provided in the parking arca west of the Lot 1 bui Idi ng. b. Plantings be added at the perimeter of the proposed Lot 1 building. c. Cross parking and access easements are established and recorded with Lot 1, block 1 to serve future Outlot B development. d. All off-street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied including parking associated with future development upon Outlot B. e. Trash handling and recycling equipment shall be stored within or attached to the principal buildings. /'. Site lighting shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Official who will certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. Outside storage at the location identilied shall be allowed with proper landscaping and screening. Applicable signage requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied. A license is issued to allow the encroachment of an off street parking area within the Marvin Road right-of..way. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to access. grading. drainage and utility issues. Building area summaries fi)r Lot I provided on the site plan are revised to be consistent. The applicant receive permission from nearby property owners regarding the proposed use of Marvin Road. This permission to come from those property owners that have property that has access only from Marvin Road. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. Public '-Icarinl!: Consideration of a request for concept staQe planned unit development for Otter Creek CrossinQ:s Business Park. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC/John Chadwick and Jim BO\vcrs. . Steve Grittman. City Planner. advised that Otter Creek LLC is seeking approval of a concept stage PUD for a 185 acre "business park" project in the West Chelsea Road area between 90th Street and County Road 39. The area has a large amount of frontage along 1-94. and would include the platting and construction of Chelsea Road. The primary land uses in the project are intended to be industrial in nature. although a broad range of 8 Planning COlllmission Minutes - 03112/02 . commercia] uses are also proposed. To accommodate the mist of uses in the district. a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District \vill be necessary. This concept review is the first step in that process. The City Engineer is working on a design for Chelsea Road that would provide access to the development. The individual site layouts \vill be addressed as potential tenant needs arc identified. The applicant identified three potential subdistricts that the PUD zoning would apply to. The first is between Chelsea Road and 1-94, called "Area A" in the concept narrative which would use I-I A as its base zoning district. but would add a range of commercial uses. In addition. this area \vould require building materials that are more indicative of contemporary commercial and higher-end industrial parks by prohibiting exposed metal finish buildings. . With regard to the land uses, planning statT believes that the addition of certain commercial uses could be compatible in this area. However. the City should be aware of potential competitive conflicts with other commercial property such as the Highway 25 corridor which has a substantial supply of commercial land that has been identified for future development based on its proximity to residential customers and highway access. Freeway exposure typically serves a different clientele. Grittman advised specific uses. some of which proposed for the concept plan \vould appear to create potential conflicts with other competitive locations. Grittman advised that the I-I A District allows outdoor storage by conditional use permit. Lkcause the intent of this area is for high visibility (presumably with high site acquisition and development costs). planning staff recommended that outdoor storage not be allowed in this area. The second tier of development lies south of Chelsea Road, designated as "Area B". Within this area. the applicant follows the I-IA District uses. and proposed to add trucking and truck service. concrete/asphalt plant and concrete products, and automobile assembly and major repair. Grittman stated that the additions to the I-I A District seem to be out of character with the remainder of the district. Automobile assembly and repair would be allowed if it were an indoor activity. and outdoor storage would occur by the issuance of a specific permit. Because this is a PUD District. the City would issue a PUD permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit. The south portion of the project area is delineated as "Area C'. This area is held out by the developers due to its proximity to residential uses farther to the south, and the timing of development. The applicant states that they prefer to wait until Areas Band C have had a chance to develop prior to committing to a specific use or development scheme in . 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/] 2/02 . this area. Area C should be platted as an outlot and the PUD development contract should rctlect this intent in order to preclude inconsistent development. Grittman advised the procedure that the City \vould follow regarding the stages of the planned unit development process. Chair Frie asked Herbst if this particular area might be re-zoned due to its close proximity to the golf course and Herbst stated it \vould not be zoned for heavy industrial and that it is approximately 400 to 500 feet from the freeway as well. O'Neill stateu that the Planning Commission and City Council discussed this area in September and at that time the consensus was that the whole area would be light industrial, possibly be some retail, but more warehouse. Since that time the Developer has come back with a PUD design which appears to be consistent with discussions from that meeting. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta, representative for Otter Crcek Business Park. provided additional information to the Planning Commission, including a site plan. He stated that they have had a great amount of discussion with staff regarding this project and stated tlexibility is the key with such a large project. HE stated the proposed roadway alignment is to accommodate the mix of uses such as large users and small users. Uses in "Area A" were a continuation of the general character along Chelsea Road, \vith a smooth transition. Bilotta also stated that the uses listed by staff that were not recommended would not be a problem, other than the medical and dental uses as he thought that currently they are a permitted use in the 1-1 A district. Bilotta also stated that the "Area B" uses came from discussions with staff and they are not proposing more heavy users, but that this would be an area providing for relocation for businesses not visible from the Highway. It \vas noted that with the PUD process, staff could add conditions for future uses. They are looking at a self-contained permanent structure that looks like a manufacturer using masonry, nothing temporary or metal. He also advised that there is nothing proposed for "Area C' at this time due to the size of the project. and if this is a'sensitive use it should be looked into at that point in time and would be handled sensitively. Frie asked the applicant if they had looked ahead at possible stress of traffic coming out onto County Road 39 and O'Neill advised that they have been working with the County on this issue, advising that the road will be upgraded. llerbst stated that the access to 1-94 is also :,ey to industries. Grittman stated that Chelsea Road would intercept traffic from Co. Rd 39 to the free\vay as well. O'Neill stated that they are eager to protect industrial land and this area has been designated as Industrial. The IDC has been looking at this property as well and has . 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . decided that a hiuh level of commercial would be a uood Lise as vvell and the v were - ~ . supportive of this de\'(.?lopment. whether industrial or a mix. Koropehak agreed with that statement. however the IDC is waiting for the Comp Plan open house date due to deadlines that they need to meet. Frie asked if the PUD is approved. what leverage does stall have at deciding the level of uses which are acceptable. Grittman stated that on the front end stall wold need to decide what uses are acceptable and that the PU D would be reviewed for each business. Grittman stated that was the initial intent and it is important to protect the Highway 25 corridor commercial area. and that a mix of uses was better at a lower threshold. A resident at 3240 County Rd 39 NE addressed the Planning Commission stating he was supportive of getting an industrial area in at that location. but asked about weight restrictions on that road and Herbst advised it was possibly 8 or 9 ton. but could not verify this as it is a County Road. The resident also added that he was concerned with heavy traffic on Country Road 39 from Chelsea Road to the bridge. and would the County Road have to be widened for industrial traffic. He was also concerned with safety due to possible industrial traffic. Grittman stated that he was not aware of any plans to widen that road. He did state that the City's transportation plan is to complete this link to Chelsea Road, and then it would extend further out to the west which would carry the traffic down to the freeway on the south side. creating less pressure to widen Co. Rd 39. . Another resident stated his concern with safety on Co. Rd. 39 as well and suggested possible addition of bypass lanes as he thought this was previously proposed. He also questioned whether the access could be moved further to the west under the power lines, but it was advised that this was not the applicant's property. O'Neill stated that staff will talk to the County Engineer and bring these comments to them. advising that this is not the tirst time the concern has come before them. They also added that this may not have an affect on this proposed PUD. Another resident in this area asked if there would be water and sewer installed and it was advised that at this tinie the Comp Plan is calling for residential zoning to the south He also asked if he wanted to develop his land could he do so, and O'Neill stated that the current plan calls telr development to occur over time in increments. but it many be possible in a few years. Chair hie then closed the public hearing. Popi Iek asked that if in the proposed "'Area A" vvould it be advisable to have grocery stores, medical and dental offices. etc.. would that help with the traffic on Hvvy 25. Grittman stated that commercial traffic would use Hwy 25 anyway and they are trying to keep that area more compact. . 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . A McrrION WAS l'vIADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TIlE OTTER CREEK BUSINESS PARK CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT' WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 8. Public l-learim.!: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow senior housin!.! as a conditional use in a PS. Public - Semi Public. zoning district. Applicant: Citv Staff Jeff O'Neill provided the report. Planning Commission is asked to consider adding Senior Housing as a conditional use in a Public/Semi Public District as a housekeeping measure as it has been discovered that this use is not identified in the PIS District even though we have allo\ved Senior Housing in this district (St. Benediets). It is the view of the City Planner that Senior/Congregate care housing was originally intended to be permitted in the PIS District, however it was inadvertently left out when the original ordinance was prepared. O'Neill listed suggested conditions to be included in the ordinance relating to establishment of senior housing as a conditional use in the PS District: . 1. 2. ., j. 4. Setbacks f<Jr Senior Housing related structures should meet the minimum standard for the district. or equal the height of the building, whichever is greater. The parking lot must have direct access from a minor collector or collector road. Underground parking must be provided at a rate of 3/4 spaces per unit. The development must be contained on an independent parcel. 30% of the parcel must be preserved in green space. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was then closed. Frie asked if St. Benedicts was aware of the conditions and are they met, and O'Neill stated that he feels they are for the most part. Grittman added that it is included in their PUD, and that since it is a PUD it \vould not be classified as nonconforming. Herbst asked about Mississippi Shores but it was noted that this is in a ditTerent district and did not apply. Dragsten asked about the condition listed stating "Underground parking must be provided at a rate of 3/4 spaces per unit"". O'Neill advised that "underground parking" was included due to the P-S districts being close to a residential area and stated the City was trying to encourage that. . 12 . . . Planning COlllmission Minutes - 03/]2102 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADD SENIOR HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS TO TI IE LIST OF CONDrrlONAL USES IN THE PIS DISTRICT. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT EST ABLISHMEnr OF THIS USE AND ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER AND NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO PIS DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 9. Continued Public Hearinl! - Consideration of adoptinl.! amendments to the Zoninl! Ordinance relatine. to sinl!le familv residential lot and development standards. Applicant: Citv of t\/lonticello. Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising the modi fications which he summarized and provided to the commissioners. Attached to the report were three draft districts for the R~ I, R-I A. and R-2A zoning districts. Grittman stated that they had been modified to renect the discussion at the February public hearing, including increasing garage size to 480 square feet changing the R-l district's required square footage to 1.050 sq. ft., and adding language to require certain facade treatment sin the R-I district. One other change related to finished square footage for rambler-style units. which provided for a minimum of 1.400 sq. ft. of finished space in such units, assuming a full basement or slab construction. The discussion at the previous Planning Commission nlCeting focused on 1,200 sq. ft. Staff felt that a larger size should be considered for several reasons. First ramblers without vv'alk-out basements do not lend themselves to creating more livable finished space so a larger minimum size seemed warranted. Second, 1.200 sq. ft. would be the absolute minimum house size for a three bedroom home. Grittman advised that one of the objectives of this project had been to create houses that t~ltnilies could grow into. Third. a 1.400 sq. ft. finished rambler should cost out at about the same as a 2,000 sq. ft./1.050 sq. ft. split level. so the ordinance would not be building in a significant cost~ related bias for one sty Ie of housing over the other. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. Jeff O'Neill provided comments from developer Tony Emmerich, although he did state that the 1.050 sq. ft. minimum was not out of line. but stating that he preferred to leave it at 960 sq. ft. and \vas hoping the City Council would allow him to continue under the former standards that they started with in the Groveland Addition. Frie asked if the conditions that Groveland's plat was developed under be adjusted and O'Neill stated that is a question for the Planning Commission to determine. stating it was their original intent but it is up to them \vhether they want to require that. Popilek and Frie stated they did not feel that would be fair to the developer. Grittman stated that the Planning 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . Commission Seems to be confusing the two issues as there currently are not standards in place for the R-J district. lie also advised that this \\ould be similar to the garage standards added last year. Popilek again disagreed and stated he felt they owe this much to the contractors to alknv them to continue with the standards that were in place at the time they applied. Herbst stated that these contractors/developers were not in attendance at the first public hearing \vhen this issue was discussed and wondered why they had not attended to state their concerns. Popilek and Frie felt that this should be applied to all new houses. not houses that have already begun the bui Iding process. It was stated however. that when ordinances were put in place regarding the garages. all new permit applications had to conform to the new standard. Grittman advised that this issue has been discussed for several months now and should be no surprise to builders/developers. Frie stated that timing was a concern to him and also who would be affected by it. O'Neill stated that part of the problem would be how to keep track of who came in \vhen. who abides by the new standards and who does not. stating this to be very difficult for stafr. l-Ie also stated he did not feci it was unreasonable or unfair as developments that were proposed for higher end homes came in with less than what they had proposed. and that is what brought this issue into motion. . Frie advised that he is in favor of the standards. as \vell as most people he has spoken to. but that his concern is who it affects. Herbst added that the people purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods where they are paying more money for their homes do not expect the builder to come in after the fact with lower standard homes. Smith added that he had a question on rambler square footages and Grittman again clarified. that the objective was to find a balancing point for opportunity l()f expanding homes. Dragsten asked about addressing Llcades in the R.J district \vhere they currently do not apply and it was noted that the Planning Commission could add them to this district if they chose to. Grittman also clarified the standard for garages on 45 sq. ft. lots that no portion fthe garage could be in front of the house. He added that if building on a 45 sq. ft. lot they would be forced to put parking/alley in the back. Dragsten felt the standard should be 12 feet. although Grittman advised that this only applies in the proposed R-2A district. A MOTION \VAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR THE R-l. R-l A. AND R-2A ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLAT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discllssion by Frie that he does support the ordinance but he questions the reasoning for the ordinance amendments as stated in the staff report where it states . 14 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 that the proposed standards would help address some of the issues related to neighhorhood quality, as well as the statement regarding populations and their affect on school enrollment. O'Neill added that the comments regarding school population was hased on anecdotal evidence and he did agree that statistics should be prepared that either verify or refute the anecdotal information. There was further discussion by Dragsten stating again that he would like the standard for garages to be extended to 12 feet in front of the house and included in the R-I and $-1 A districts as well. Also to include in the motion that this does not apply to existing plats where lots are already in and the effective date to be August L 2002 due to the finding that there are potential home owners that would be unable to build according to these standards. Smith asked for clari fication from Dragsten and he stated that he felt they must have the same rules apply in all districts. Grittman clarified that his standard gives the builder flexibility to do something other. Herbst stated he did not agree with the August 1 date. ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THESE STANDARDS DO NOT APPL Y TO EXISTING PLATS AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE AUGUST 1,2002 WITf-I TIlE FINDING THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL HOME O\VNERS "THAT HAVE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE TI-lA T WOULD BE UNABLE TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THESE STANDARDS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. AMENDMENT PREY AILS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 10. Consideration of adoption of a resolution stating that the Hans Hagen/Front Street proiect is consistent \-vith the eomprehensi ve plan of the City of Monticello. Steve Grittman advised that Hans Hagen Homes will be requesting a conditional use permit to allo\-v the construction of a ten unit townhouse project along Front Street between Walnut and Locust. Prior to submittal of the application. Hans Hagen would like feedback on the n10st recent design. The project would consist of single level residential units t~lCing the Mississippi River. with rear-loaded garages along a private alley. The units are located near Front Street and The City's objective has been to encourage an urban environment. hoth in site planning and architecture. The site is supported by the adjacent Bridge Park and has been targeted by the City's HRA as a prime location for a part of its "North Anchor" redevelopment. Grittman advised that in the CCD zoning district residential units are permitted uses on the second level of buildings, and may occupy the ground level by conditional use permit. Staff has raised concern in relation to the project based on the nature of the proposed market and the architectural demands relating to the residents. At one point in the development of the design concept the applicant had worked on two-story buildings with 15 Planning. Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . a strong vertical appearance and relationship to the street. These units would likely have been marketed to young professionals or families. However. the applicant has stated that based on market research. the only realistic market for units of this type is in the "empty nester" category. Home buyers in this market demand single level units to eliminate stairs. The change from two to (me-story buildings has resulted in a dramatic impact on the urban look of the project and would change the social dynamics of the neighborhood. Staff has asked the applicant to work on the architecture of the buildings in an effort to create buildings that are noticeably distinguishable from suburban townhouse projects. Grittman added that in this district the ordinance states a minimum height of 15 feet for all buildings n the district the intent being to accomplish an urban look to all areas within the CCD. The applicant's design changes should address this standard. . Grittman advised that the project otherwise appears to be consistent with the Downtown Revitalization Plan. the future land uses in the North Anchor area, and the neighborhood. One site planing issue relates to the location of Front Street, which will be reconstructed as part of this project. Staff hand encouraged the applicant to consider small front yard spaces and relate the buildings to the street. including the potential for placing the buildings very near the street and sidewalk areas. The proposed design appears to relocate Front Street toward the river in an effort to allow deeper bui lding footprints (resulting hom the change to single level units), and to accommodate grading along the rear property line. However. there is some concern that the location of Front Street may have pushed too far tow-ard the river. resulting in some problematic construction issues. These issues should be resolved with the City Engineer prior to final approval. This project is also in the Wild and Scenic River area and subject to Shoreland regulations. Public Works has found that a considerable amount of trees would have to be removed. encroaching into the park area, and Wild and Scenic issues in regard to relocating Front Street to'vvard the river. It was noted that due to the project's location to the parks and ri ver. staff stated they envisioned this area for both families and empty nesters. llerbst stated that he was under the assumption that they were going to vacate that street at one time. and also asked if the City could hook up to the sidewalk and have all parking in the rear. Grittman stated that there is a plan for a sidewalk and also it was the intent of staff to keep the street to provide access to the public for parks. Jon Peterson, representative for Hans Hagen. addressed the Planning Commission stating that there \\ould be ten 1.660 sq. f1. units on the site and advised that Hans Hagen builds upscale town homes. stating in their market study they found the two-story family units do not meet the market demands at this time as the demand is for one level. He estimated . 16 . . . Planning COl11l11ission Minutes - 03112/02 that the entry level price for a unit would be above $200,000, adding that they had a concern with the two-story driving the costs up higher. lie advised the ranges for the units they built in S1. Michael as well. Dragsten stated that when they met with the North Anchor committee it was determined that this area vvould remain as parkland. Koropchak stated that it was one of the initial ideas. but that they did not follow through mainly due to the expense of adding more property two blocks further down. She also advised that the I-IRA was anticipating that some sort of development will go in that area and elaborated that they had spoken to property owners and other city commissions as well in regard to the plan by Hans Hagen. She stated that the HRA is waiting until their April meeting to enter into a contract with Hans Hagen. after Planning Commission has reviewed. She also advised of the HRA"s time frame. Richard Carlson commented that there is a development of both family and empty nesters near the golf course that was well received and so he disagrees with the market analysis by Hans Hagen. Peterson stated the demand is 10 to I from a marketing standpoint for one level versus two. He stated the change occurred when they presented the two story concept to their marketing department and got negative feedback. Carlson stated he felt differently with sites on the river that they would prefer two story for the view. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND SUPPORT OF THE DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR A 10 UNIT TOWN HOME PROJECT WITH THE CONDITION TH^ T THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST MODIFIES THE ARCHITECTURE TO MEET 'THE MINIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION ISSUES ARE RESOLVED TO TI IE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 '1'0 1 WITH RICHARD CARLSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 11. Consideration to adopt a resolution tindill!..': that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the 'fIF Plan for TlF District No. 1-29 conform to the general phms for the development and redevelopment of the citv. Ollie Koropchak. Economic Development Director. provided the staff report stating that the Planning Commission is asked to adopt a resolution stating it tinds the proposed TIF District No, 1-29 Plan confi:mns with the comprehensive plan of the city. Proposed TIF District No. 1-29 is being established to assist the developer (Front Porch Associates) with land acquisition f()r the development of26 townhouse units. However. the district will consists of 18 townhouse units. Since a majority of the project area 17 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 included rmv land and only one parcel consisted of substandard improvements. a Housing District \vas created and not a Redevelopment District. It was noted that this item is not intended to approve the design changes. O'Neill added that stall did have a productive meeting with Cyr earlier in the day which addressed those concerns. The Council will hold a public hearing and approve the TIF Plan on March 25. 2002. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING TI-IA T A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-29 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION CONTINGENT ON DEVELOPER OBTAINING DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROV AL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 12. Consideration of a request for a 5' variance to the 10' side yard setback requirement for a retaininl!: wall that exceeds 8' in heil!:ht. Applicant: Gould Bros. Chevrolet/John Michaelis Jeff (YNeill advised that initially the building was to be moved 5 feet but that there has been some discussion that this may not occur now. O'Neill stated that this item should be continued to the next meeting if it was determined that a variance was still needed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT V ARIANCE TO THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A RETAINING WALL 'rJIAT EXCEEDS 8 FEET IN HEIGHT TO THE APRIL 2. 2002 MEETING. RICI-IARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOlJSL Y. 13. Consideration of chanl!ing the November 5. 2002 meeting date to November 12, 2002. due to elections. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBll:: SMITH TO CHANGE THE NOVEMBER 5. 2002 MEETING DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOVEMBER 12.2002. DUE TO ELECTIONS. ROY POPILEK SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 18 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/12/02 . 14. Fred Patch ad\-ised that in 1999 the City acted to have Ken's Service Station clean up his site and it took until approximately 200 I. Also noted was that the business was allowed to have vehicles stored on the property that were being worked on, as well as allowing them to park their service vehicles on the site. O'Neill advised that \vhen there is new development there is the hope that this area will be redeveloped which would take care of the problem. It was discussed that this site is really a mess and there had been previous complaints from neighbors regarding this site, but none recently. Patch stated that the Planning Commission could advise staff to address this again. Frie added that possibly discussing this site with Supt. Benedetto in regard to a possible safety concern. 14B. Chair Frie advised that he had become aware of a potential home buyer in Monticello \vho had been \vaiting for an answer from City staffregarding potential assessments on the Broadway improvement project prior to signing a purchase agreement, who possibly lost the opportLInity to purchase this home due to not getting an answer back from staff in a timely manner. O'Neill stated that there is not a set time frame for staff to return phone calls but that it was more a courtesy call. O'Neill added that he was aware of this call and that it had come in on an afternoon that he was out of the otlice and when he got the message he . fOr\varded it on to John Simola in the Public Works Dept. to answer. 14(', Update ree.ardine. the proposed Mielke project. O'Neill stated that this project was really going back and forth, and he had heard that Mielke's plan was changing to a strip center, but then went back to the original proposed PUD. At this time the final plat has not been signed. It was discussed that the Planning Commission and City Council had been asked by Mielke to rush the project so that he could get the project going, and they have not heard from him since then. It was noted that there were assessment agreements signed so that is not a cost concern of the City. 15. Adiourn ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING ^T 10:40 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Recorder . 19 . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 25,2002 - 6 p.m. Members Present: Chair Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Roy Popilek. Robbie Smith and Council Liaison. Clint Herbst. Members Absent: None Staff: Fred Patch I. Call to Order. 2. Chair Dick Frie called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and declared a quorum present. Continued Public Hearine: Consideration of a reQuest for approval of a development staee planned unit development and preliminary plat approval for Vine Place Townhomes. Applicant: Mike Cvr/Front Porch Associates. Fred Patch presented the background information on the agenda item noting that the Planning Commission had originally considered this item at their March II. 2002 meeting and tabled acting on it. Since Planning Commission consideration of the item. staff has met with the applicant and his engineer and have resolved many of the problems noted in the staff report and by the Planning Commission by shortening the structures. Fred Patch explained how private street access. building separation. private street width. alley width. setbacks and other concerns were resolved. He noted that the width of the private streets had been increased from 20' to 22' from back of curb to back of curb. that through access in one direction had been provided for and that the one way alleys are now all through streets and the alleys have been \videned to 14'. Although the building structure has been shortened by 6' the living space did not decrease. By shortening the structure, they were able to retain the original amount of living space and also allow for a longer parking space. The curb was also moved 5' from the property line. It was pointed out that Lot 9 and 19 will be owned by the homeowner's association. The right-or-way for Vine Street was an area of contention. Randy Ruff is making a claim of ownership rights on 1'2 of the Vine Street right-of.-way lying south of West 6th Street going through the project area. Fred Patch stated that staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development and preliminary plat \vith the addition of contingency #d. Contingency #d calls for the City sale to the developer of that portion of Vine Street lying south of West 6th Street within the project area. The right-of-way property must be sold prior to the conditional use permit and preliminary plat being finalized. Chair Frie asked about the status of the legal action. Fred Patch responded that the city attorney had initiated an ejectment proceeding to remove Randy Ruff from the right-of-way. . . . Special Planning Meeting - 3/25/02 Chair Frie then opened the public hearing. Kevin Stumpf. 706-6lh Street West. Monticello spoke regarding the proposed development asking if that w-ould impact his ability to subdivide his property into two buildable lots. Fred Patch answered that at this point he could not make that determination since the size and frontage of the Stumpf property was not known. Fred Patch and Kevin Stumpf will meet and determine whether the Stumpf property could be subdivided under the simple subdivision process. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. In further discussion by the Planning Commission, Richard Carlson questioned the alignment of the alley shown on the plan. I-Ie felt that it might be too tight for to the garages (Units 12 & 13) and might cause some problems. Fred Patch felt the maneuvering width of the alley was the same but agreed that the sharpness of the curve could be a problem and that staff could look at changing the alignment. Mike Cyr. the developer. noted that alleys were 14' wide and one way so the alley should be wide enough, but that he could look at changing the alignment of the curve of the alley. Chair Frie asked if the purchase of the Tucek property would have an impact on the Cyr development. Mike Cyr indicated it did not. Chair hie also asked about the time frame for this project. Mike Cyr responded that the right-or-way issue would have to be resolved first but otherwise they would be starting as soon as possible. Chair Frie asked if Mike Cyr would advise the Planning Commission of the size and cost of the townhomes. Mike Cyr noted they are 1,370 sq. ft. with a full size garage and the starting price for the units will be $169,000. Chair Frie noted that by continuing the public hearing it allowed the staff, applicant and the Planning Commission to resolve the issues on this development. DICK FRIE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND GRANT DEVELOPMENT STAGE APPROVAL OF THE VINE PLACE TOWNHOME PROJECT CONTINGENT UPON THE FOLLOWING: A. Final review of the landscaping plan by the City Planner. B. Final review of ~he engineer plans by the City Engineer. C. Final review oCthe architectural design by the City Planner. D. 'rhe City's sale to the developer of that the portion of Vine Street right-of-way lying south of West 6\h Street within the defined project area. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Other Items: Chair Dick Frie noted that the residential design standards approved by the Planning Commission would not be presented to the Council until their April S, 2002 meeting. He also noted that the Auto Mall development by Shawn Weinand \Nas being tabled. 2 Special Planning Meeting - 3/25/02 . fred Patch reported that Milton Olson contacted him about concerns the construction into Marvin Road by the Weinand project. One of the requirements for approval of the project \vas that the property owners with access onto Marvin Road agree to the proposed Marvin Road activity. Clint Herbst noted that Milton Olson had concerns about the water table on his property as well. Dick Frie questioned why he did not come to the public hearing or send a representative. The Planning Commission brietly discussed the Weinand project's use of Marvin Road. Dick Frie stated that he had gotten a number of calls and comments about the televising of the Planning Commission meetings and problems with the cable channel. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 6:35 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recording Secretary . . .., .J . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/02 5. Public Hemin!.!: - Consideration of a special home occupation permit allowing a salon in the R-2 residential district. Applicant: David GassIer. (.JG) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Gassier, 6117 Mill Run Road, is requesting a special home occupation permit which would allow the applicant to operate a home salon in a residential neighborhood. The home salon will have one stylist and will operate during the day, approximately 20 hours per week. Users of the salon will enter the residence via the front door or the walkout entrance in back. There will be limited retail of products not available to the general public. Inventory, such as hair color, bleach, etc., will be stored in a pantry or closet in the salon roOln. Walls will be constructed in the unfinished basement to enclose the new salon room. The purpose of going through the special home occupation process is to evaluate how the occupation is conducted, making sure it docs not jeopardize the health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. This particular neighborhood consists of attached two family dwellings in a R-2 district. Stall believes the applicant meets all provisions and requirements of the code with the following concerns and suggestions to be made as conditions: . Customer parking: The ordinance states that no home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for ofT-street parking at any given point in time. A method of controlling this is through appointment only service. . Signage: The applicant circled no f(}[ signage. Being as this is in a neighborhood or attached two family dwellings, it might be beneficial to have an identification sign (identifying the name of the resident) so customers aren't going to the wrong residence. . Hours of operation: Staff would like to see a condition limiting the hours of operation to normal business hours. (Monday - Friday 8 - 5, Weekends 8 - 2). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve the special home occupation permit based on the following findings: a. The business is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/02 . b. The business will not result in depreciation of the adjacent properties. It is reconllnended that such approval be contingent upon the fulfilhnent of the following conditions: I. The business is operated in an appointment only manner to limit the number of vehicles parked at the residence at the same time. 2. The applicant provides proper signage (identifying the name of the resident). 3. The hours of operation are limited to normal business hours. Weekdays X - 5 Weekends 8 - 2 2. Motion to deny the request for a home occupation permit 3. Motion to table the action, subject to further study. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON . Staff recommends approval of the speeial home occupation permit. It is our view that with the conditions noted above, the presence of the commercial use will be transparent to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission may wish to add or subtract from the list of conditions. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Location Map . Special Home Occupation Request Home Salon · 6117 Mill Run Rd :' / " / /' 7~-/ . '_ / / " ,I / / / / / / _ /~ .~ __ / 1 .~---~-L I T ' Sf/-: , r r-r~'--- I · \',,~ '" \~ . j / II I \ \ '\, II r'f- --r~ -1;_ ------- -----~---J. >------__1 \ \. -"" '. \ \ \. I I r / --. \ ': \ . I I f /.., , \ \.-----~------(- --------- ......,... \ \.'i: L I L I / . ./ ;' ----_______j \ \ 1.--- ----_ L-__L- ..In____~_______ I / // I / I . ...>/. '. / ,\, \ Il i - --no . I -."-. -.- / /. ... / I I ..r ------ .-----l / II' ,/' ://.... L1 _J-\-- - l <:... --------7 --~---- \\ ..///" ........,.., // // ..I '--\ 1\ 1\ \\ ................., 1__ ------ _.'--_. .....;! I \ ~..... / -----,- ,.//.. ... ''''. ...... '" / /' ,. \ ....; -__ ~-----7 ,// ), / "'>1: \ \ \.// / ........-.... - .------7 / / ./..,'...., '-1'1') '. , l____ ,............-.,~~-,---- .,.,A" ,~.........." ,I ,,/'// /)~qO'-. -- / /,~ -TT,-,\"\\',,"j ~IEl,..s' <//./;//1'- -l-~/\ \ \\ \ \ \ ~\\~ .....j 1~Jf '<" / / .. \ ___ _~j . n_J VCC9 _./ / \ v- - ----- 9A ". -.j l \. '11 -'~"<.. _ .~ ~ / . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/02 6. Public Hearin2: Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for develonment staee nlanned unit develonment and nreliminary plat approval allowing commercial condominiums in the I-IA zoning district. Applicant: Allied Properties & Mana1!ement. LLC. (N^C) REFERENCE ^ND B^CKGROUND The applicants have forwarded plans for a three phase Office-Warehouse project on property along Seventh Street cast of the FSI building. The project would consist of two buildings, with the larger of the two, divided into two separate phases. The concept plan was reviewed previously, with comments related to the following items: 1. Submission of Landscape, Grading/Drainage. and Building Plans. These plans have been submitted as required. 2. The access points to Seventh Street be aligned with Wright and Ramsey Streets to the north. The proposed plans show alignment with both streets as requested, and an additional access drive in the northeastern corner. 3. Additional plantings be provided along the perimeter of the buildings. T'he landscaping plan includes a total of 47 trees and 108 shrubs on the site. The trees are predominantly along the perimeter of the parking lot, with shrubs and an ornamental tree in islands on the building side of the parking area. According to the zoning ordinance, one tree per 50 feet of perimeter lot line is required, for a total of 65 trees. The landscape plan should be revised to include the additional trees. There are some opportunities for additional landscaping in the interior of the site. but the boundary line with the residential to the cast would also benefit from additional planting. 4. OfT street parking is verified. The site appears to have adequate parking ft)r the proposed buildings (183,000 square feet) if the buildings contained equal amounts of office and warehouse. It would be our experience that the majority of space in these buildings would be devoted to warehouse floor space. and therdl1re, there would be more than enough parking to serve the buildings. 5. Trash handling equipment should be stored within buildings. The site plans do not detail remote trash handling areas. The buildings arc set up to provide service access tronl both sides of the building. Trash handling facilities should be able to meet this requirement. 6. Site lighting should be subject to Building Official approval. ^ photometric plan should be generated and submitted to the City for this review. Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/02 7. The proposed plans illustrate site signage on the building wall over each tenant bay, easily in conformance with City requirements. X. Overhead doors facing the site perimeter shall be in a color and quality that will match and compl iment the predominant color of the exterior facade, so as not to imply loading docks t~lcing public streets contrary to ordinance. 9. Compliance with other City staff comments. This recommendation is ongoing. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PtJD as submitted, subject to final review consistent with the comments of City staff and as detailed in this report. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD, based on findings to be generated from comments at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ..---- . Stall recommends approval of the pun as submitted. I t appears to be a project that is compatible with its location, and consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. Conditions of approval should include landscaping revisions. site lighting information, and grading, drainage. and other engineering comments from City staff. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Site Plan 2. Landscape Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Grading and Drainage Plans .. .- ,,- _.,,- -"..,~.-,- __ ._., __. - _.. .._ _n ~: ~! l iil I lit Sill ~~ 1;.11 ~ Iii" ~ 0 VloSllIuUIW '01l1ll311UOW ~ ~l " · i~ ~ ~d.il; ~ II lS3M '176 Ol13::>11NOW i <( " ii:'i~' i ~ II i . ~ ~~ : ill ~h~i I. i mh;! ! ' 8u!PI!ng pasodoJd ! I ~: ~!II i I : ~ iJ ~ ' - " ,; i '; ~ n n a 11:<" ' ~. 1 ii ji i ii . '" ~ f ~ Ul1~ -" I! ~ !iHi! !!i! :<" .! ~!! i I Ii! ~ @j Im~." iJ f :> j': wj n;ll~ ~:l~~L J.lliii IdP~~%} J. '!lj~ ~ l~ .~... J~i= ~~=} -1! iIJjlt.,H,.,.t.,II:>;:j! m.n11>g~.':l!" Ft i -ii".i 1 i! ., 1.~~.;~1 l~ _=._ t 'i ''-'lP'.~ ~"'"~"1""~1~' :'ii" ,& . j I J - !i~ '! . I J ii~:i~iii;h~~~h.lH~~~i~ i I I ~i:;ij ~!iHil:'i~~!3ij!ii nt.,."... ~~ I ,HI !!h Hsll!!~~~~!ii~mm~m!i~!=iIIIII!IUl ~~h: iihtl!S~i~~U!iui jill:: i~' iHI !!ll!iJ'lllH i~~ ~I~~W! 1:';1"'11 '';Ht~~!, iSI u1 !~n! ".!I'I~uljrJh li! 'hl~lhiU 11' "llf~,-JHh Ii @ jH ~i! m~ ~!!jh jh~ 1 Jh @!i i! !!!~.~~~! hi @ I ~!~ !!!. .,:.~;~I~hh ~!~~~1~1~ ~ i~!":! I ~~~~: ~;;~~. ~~~.! <,,10"'; I cI~".I -illli....i ~ ~ 0 a: . ~ u ~ W ~ - ~ .... ~:~ VJ :-'~ .... :it !oJ ~ ~~ :r. :z:~ r,I1...,~ : ~ ~~ ~H : ;;; ~ ~~. ;)0 "Ifz:) E ~ ~ w;ti o ... ... o i:: z .' _ .~ Ii'I ~ u.I :;z;Q: ~~! V ~ ~HH I- W ~ ~u z o ~ ~ o l!:J- .., aJ ... II!:z ... I ~:: : i III: O2 :2.:.-:' ~ ~o .;" Q litO g>,g U .. . z ;. Ii >w ~! ::; ~ !iUUlmU % : ,_ d.mhlljl ~ - I! ~~ ,b; ! ~1! ! ~u ~'lhil H!!I :! "W iIIJll~! jnot!=l! ~ ~ l15! ~J I U!~!, i <~. :: ~Bitl dUJlhiiu · o Q ~ ~}:!...1 ...:....,.,.:.nlll~...!:!'~t: 0... .,[ iii / /1 ;____./1 /~J ,'~ ,/ :i~" / /j -.0_,,,. " ,'f , " ,: ,'1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Ie i~, <l.- I'" (lI ~~ ~ e c "' '" a i -~ . ". . ~; ~ l d~ I .~t " C~; ! 09i'4:{s " '~"-"""" ) ~~ ~~~~" e! I ,~~ \ r I ',r.-\ ~,i~~ \ i \c>-{.).~? J h \ ~~ J ~~ . /" as 1 ,~~_/._____.1 . -[Io~ ;~ // - J :I~ ,.~~:::::'~'- ~ ~ ~ c :;t ",. ~ ~- ._~~-_.J ~~ .W-,r _'il-,~ _9 1Il.o( Il: a ~: iII_ "' tj, ':i ...., ."'" 13 ill " " ~ "s ~ . ~j~~" n ~'nh I,',,) ~ i .~. Y. " ~ If -~Iil ji~ ::: I ~--11 I iIi ~ a..... 111; /1i "c', ! h~~l .~ I" H'~'_ ~~oI~~b<,l a\e ~ ~I" ~ lh,i~ '" ~: ',', ',,',1 ~~ t.. "'~! 0- i' Ill! ~8~"r.o'i~ ., , ,~ft2~~!~I'l~' ~.~ ~~ ..t~:I. : ~~ .' / ',. . / ,t/ / h t" ~~,~",... , --:~::;.---~ ;........ "'.IIf~t~l\ll1l\ ~"""""'J ~ l~ I~.> II " !Ii ~ l!~OS;'II\IIW 'Ol\":muow 153M t6 0113:>11NOW SUlPI!o9 pasodoJd . -.--.--.---';, f f f f f f f ~ i. I ihi i~ ~ .~~J ~"S ;;g~ Ii I waIL i ~ Hia ~i ~ I ~, ie ~ ~ ~ '1~~o e~ . I"'~' ", ~ im! I. ; H~h .~ I -" ..;'" , .........~......~/ l 0" i!' "'- GO ::J~ -:0 dq ;li ~!i d. ~". I'~ >~ !Um~ ~ ..., -.............. .,-i'~ ........... s.o(~.,...o, .-..........~ '>, ~s./~ .. '~ . f f f f f . . f f f f ... f .............J ~ ~l it i ~ .....J . 2 ~! ~~ <. t~ "l I .,~ ~ stili ~ ~~ "; i~-' ; ^ .;~ .. ~I~i i! n! i h ~i~1 B ~H M. l\ \ ~ c " z >= z ~ ~ II . . i i , ..,::; MJ.d]O Tl'i'IIU) ~ c " z 1= '" ~ ja i1i ::; .."ll z :'i "- i ; ~ . . . . .0 ~ ~ ~ ;, ;, ~ ! ! . ! ! Oi iU iH i H Hi ~ Iii II Ih ~ i Hi II IB ~U ~ ; I 'Ii S ~ " ~ G ~ g.. h . :!" ;,; "', ~$ ,,' "'. ~~ -::; tM;n"-~"'~l"'" ;w,oj,....J SIll \~~ _Ii \fi~ h~. \ I \ ..~ l~~1 ~"R!I~ 0 w~ ,., ~,li!_IJ ..c:: ,. ~_ ,~) e.hl. .~ ~'" 0 -i .01' ~., Ii 'Co >!~~ get' J ~ ~. ~: ~}l\ iuth.! II! ~ h~\ 153M 176 Ol13:J11NOW ~u!P\!nB pasodoJd 1!~OS3UU!W 'oUUllUOW . /y/ ,0 i=~ :-ia -{ L~ .~ "~ ~i ':. ~ r-~.~ .".:. \co In'!. _ r:-I'1 =.' : ~i \ - . 4>- ~ it ~ \ .Ii R~ Hi :: SsS !lh~~ \iii\ i < !~ r- -- -- I / /_/i_/J~j - / i = / II... . / '-~-J I I / /-____ I ~ / / I ~: <......... (______ .::-.;; \ / "I ............. -..........~.......~........ i ........ / ...."-...J k9.I......,..~,......"I- :fi\IIl-.tJ : 1Ii~ i. ~ ! i~- sill ;-1,,) ~ ~ ~l ,!;. 1l10SaUUIW 'olla:>IIUOW H M :w ~~~! ~IJ,!li 0 U .;;: II ; ~ ~i ~; !~ii ~li.il' ~ II 153M t6 0113::>I1NOW <( cir !I i ~h~~ Su!pl!ng pasodoJd :' "Q ~ 01[0 Z:.s.: !! lIh~ J: ~~i H Ilh. I! (9 r- nn n 7 //......../..."'-.'.(.....i........5....iJ... ....ij~ ,/ I~ / ;;:. (,:--./ .. i g, .........C:Z~:~ .... \ / .................~"/ i ................ I ....-....j I=~ ~ " i7i "" ~ '" 0. I ~' 0., g- o' -~ ", ". .......~....~ .......... .....~ '.~.... .....~....~. / ........ ........ / ". ,...~ I '..... / .....,.... / / / / / .............. II >, / "'. / / .'...... . /'....... i ~ ........ / y.......~ . i .......... / / . /~l--~ ;' 'J;;tj'..' I I ~! I . ':~~~:rl 1/ /5~~' / ~~~.~~i' .""~ / i~&/' ! I Q .,...... ............ '."... :'; / ~.o'\t0 '?.j ) ...... ...... -7.' . / -.., ~!:.>:~>:y.......fJ..:1ff' / ~.~~. ~ ~.o......... ...~.I:.(I0f<~ / /'~ / / t.J ......,"'~ ....... 'i -... ~~. t!' r-ct '~I .~.:!- ............. '."1: t ,I,;,!III I' j.' / 'Dl ............ ~':;;,-..... "N/ / // <:J ................:'--/.. ""''''';j!'''' I ...... ! / ..;~.... ~-i.. / --""";1 ..~;...~....... . ~ I' t;l Cl> -........:: " r:t .'....../ ! ........ .~~~ ! / ! / .....~~. _. I /;--............. ............ ! ! t..jI'l_IIdiY"~)jIIl9l'l~~J : .15 ~' li~ ~ sB I ~: f -III :~ !~II 'I'. t! 1M eJo$;JuulW 'OIl33lJUOW HI ~ ~f!l! : . ~ "'0- 1"'1 al 'II' lS3M 176 0113::>IINOW < ;; '5~3r ! . ~ l z ~: wi ur !. . 8U1PI!"9 pasodoJd otjj" ss ~ -; ~! Ihi! ! ' 1 . : ~ ~ i ! ! s< hg, 6i t=~ ~.. Fk~ f~'-1 I..;,,~,. ---1 'I ' I ~ tt:::;,,;.,,~_-_>>,;-_ J- __ ___ ,I 1'-1----...1 ',~_, ~' , ~ ':;>-, ....I-~-.~ I I ; .' -'~. '-'f ....:..::..~~:, .............', . i 1'.-- 1'1 .~.-t"---,.__,- + ~ , i i,-; ';;;-.,., ";;'-l~-- I ' .~.+~, tfi ? 11 - :- -~ ,- ~ .:... , Ii.. ~~ +-- '1-- "1--:1." - f.:, ci?l Iii . r i- r -~~ , , I I -1-' I 1 I I I "., j - ,';i-. r- -- :0" ~ I :i I l'I J_ ~ .J__ I ~ I , ;/' I e I ~r ..1- ..I...-- .__...~ ,,_ 1 I ~ 1 I cd" :_'."~ l~l . -r----r--- [~ _ ~; I I -1--t , , I 1 ~ j L :~ -. . ----;~f.= ~~I ~"? 1 I · , I -,-- I b -e,... ~~l ~ ~ _ ~jJ ~ ~ ~ ~ nj ~ i ~ -,--~ .! = ii] . '~' !iJ . i @. oj @ ii] r-.------7 /,- " I / /. /-", I I II ,/1 / :' .,' 1= I t"._,,, ! / (~~:' ~! ...... .-....... I ~ " I "-....j r-~ 'b.: ,::_.r - . i!!i . ~r _r~~ l~r ~; i=~ V. r.6~ -. '.. ~~A. __r,ii-iE _ ~~~ ~ ~; s In ~ ."! ~ " , ,. . -.- ~~ - ~~ .z: .-.: ~":' .~. 'm~ ~'I"ti-.r"'H""_)o~<mf\I ;._.4 ... ., : _ii Ii, ~ -III ....0 l"'~ ~i";i~ Jim eloseuulW 'oua:muow .Ii I~- =: :~!! g dill; · ~ i ! I./') Ill. ~ ~ ~ lS3M t6 0113:>IINOW 1= III . :.; ~~~l ~ i'" ! . ~; r. < l f <( "'Ifu z"'. hUhi! d 8UIPU"B pasodoJd .t.t . " " " ; ~ ~~ ~~ii I H ~ = ~ 'III[ _:I: ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ Co ~ r~-- -- { /i!,Jr~/ / ij' <'~ / \ f / I~~ ("".;,/ \, ~i " " ......-....~---../ i ~; .......... , ....."'-...J . ~'" ~~ w w ~t V> V> Ii '" '" III '" "- ~ '" .. "- fi' e fi' i'5 "- z .. 0 0 0 i3 " "0. z 0:: z ~~ ~ 0 " ~' 0 !t ~~ " ll]~ ~~ 0::' r "'. d' ;j. ~ DTI i"- - ~~ v>' :i;'. l ~ " ~ ~::./ -::./ " " N::./ " Ii " " 0- " Ii " " ::g- l, '. "0 ::rJ~ ::~~ "J ITD . ~' ~ lb. I J~J ~ 6-p.I~~~JtI""":-IJ lS3M t6 Ol13:>I1NOW SUIP/lna pasodoJd . I ~ .i~ I tf i~" II.I/~ ~ I e ~~ -" ~< ..', ~, ~w 101! ~f:t.~. 0 ::'-: 1';/ !lhl ~ ..: I III ~~ lill iuH~ 11, ~ I~ l!!osauu/lIV 'ooa:muow I jjl"! I tl~ ~ -1 '" ! ~ h, ': < ~ liHlilflll1 ~i <( . " " ~ " " " " " " " " ~ " i j ~ J: " " " " " " " " " " " " " , " " " " " Ii s " " ~ ~. ::U y :i S' :: ~I" :: ~s ::M 11__) - "I <: I "- ~ ~ W V> <: i:' ~ IE '" ~ ;;j - ~ "- "- o ! ~. ~~ I." l ~ ~r w iE- ~. 'i< 'ijs: ~~~. ' ~~l!I~ i~e, ~d~d E"~ -~ ( S Ii " " ~. ~. ~W l........,l... , Ii ! "- ~- f:t~ i~ , ", " n II I. I I ~ ~. . ~ . ( .- W~ IIITIT l~'~ 1i'T1F Ll1.Jb l.. mm r--- -- -- 7 //~] 1'- / / i'~/ 11' / so I ....~........ I:' ill I / ,,' /',- ,',-- "I,' ~ / /";, I"", "/' I . (>,<~< ) / ;; ..",'...... ~~-...::............../ " ........ I ....-.....j '1/ '-/I'r-M~tv'~0-8_lIj""",,, "-IJ . :61 K" ~ ! . -III .... ("I j ~ ~ ~ ~I'!i~ elosauuwv 'olla311uoW Hf Ui! ~~ i~11 ~f f' · 0 '" is ,if ~ 'I 153M "'6 Ol13::>11NOW d IU e "'r ~ J~ <( Cu '~II .11" ~, , ~h~l it 'hi~ ' ! 8ulPUn9 pasodOJd ~. . ~ s :;; ~: ~H II f "" 11. . ~ ~ ~ t . , .6 ~ g . i' I s~ l L f1lJ .k .~ fill '. . i: - - r~ w - 1lI l V> w ::: V> <( <( if "- " ~ "- ... ~ 0 ~ z 15 0 0;; '" '" ::! ~. ::!' I [!ill w' w" d~ w. ;;j. ~ >- mr ;E- ~~ ~.. z -~ ~~ ~ ~, ~; " " ~ ~ :: ~ i'i: " i' nn ii si l~... l " J r ~ ~ " . " · i~ " '~n i~ ' " ,." " " " , " . " ." " ["- -- ---- 7 I ,'--') I / 1/' . --. t"" I ~ /. I .,y -..... ill- I I (." I 1_ / ...'.......-../t i <( C~ l ! ~! ~>:~-/ /~_ / I '- '- llolIP"!IItIl'l,jlV-Hl/>tlll"fI\i91'1 ~f_~~ ~ 1 a z <( ~ a.. >- 0:: <( Z ::E ~ W 0:: a.. . i ......,... -_:..../~~~~~~~-);,:,- '.... ~...:;~~::; ~"r1" " " ,,' ....... ........ ........ --- ................ .....,... ~'-\\ ~. ..... \ ""'"" ~, \ ..,~, i I I I I I I I I I . . . Planning Commissioll Agenda - 04/02/02 7. Consideration of a re(lUest for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Develomnent and allowing residential uses on the first noor in the CCD District. Applicant: Hans Hauen 1I0mes. (FP) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On March 12, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch design for this 10 unit townhouse project proposed by Hans Ilagen Homes. The Commission moved to suppoli the design concepts, subject to meeting minimum building height requirements for the CCD District, and subject to resolution of issues relating to the Front Street reconstruction project. Hans Hagen Homes is requesting a concept stage Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of the townhouse project along front Street. between Walnut and Locust. In the CeD zoning district, residential units are permitted uses on the second level of buildings, and may occupy the ground level only by Conditional Use Permit. The project would consist of ten 1,660 square foot single level residential units fllcing the Mississippi River, with rear-loaded garages along a private alley. Even though this project is residential in use the City's objective has been to encourage an urban environment in thc CCD District, both in site planning and architecture. The site is supported by the adjacent Bridge Park, and has been targeted by the City's liRA as a prime location fix a part of its "North Anchor" redevelopment. Though some consideration was given to the change from two-story to one-story buildings, the project was recognized as being consistent with the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan and will meet the minimum building height requirement of 15 feet for all buildings in the District in order to maintain an "urban look". Site specific concerns are as follows: I. Preliminary Plat & Encroachments - Ten (10) thirty-three foot lots are proposed by the preliminary plat to be platted entirely through the width of the development. Maintenance of all building exteriors and grounds within the development arca should be managed by a homeowners' association according to their covenants and by-laws. It has also been observed that roof overhangs of the proposed buildings extend into the public right of way and across lot lines. The plat must be adjusted to address these encroachments into the right of way. It may be adjusted to bring the common clements into a lot surrounding the individual building lots. Also, covenants and by-laws of the homeowners' association should be submitted to the City. 2. Site Density - Density requirements of the Shoreland regulations appear to have . . . been mct because there is less than 8000 square feet of covered site area per unit. ,., j. Relocation of Front Street- A proposed land survey and a preliminary plat providing revisions and dated 3/13/02 have been submitted for this application. The proposed land survey depicts the northward relocation of Front Street. The relocation must leave sufficient area for parkland and trail on the north side of Front Street. Individual trees arc not located on north side of Front Street and may be impacted by the Riverside Trail that will likely be paved to 10 feet width. The cost and payment method for the Front Street reconstruction including utilities, roadway and trail are undetermined at this time. The City Engineer is presently developing utility, roadway and trail plans consistent with this townhouse development. 4. Sidewalk Encroachment-- The live foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Front Street encroaches into Lots 1, 2 and 3. The City Engineer suggests that the sidewalk should be at least one foot away from the property line and entirely within the public right of way. 5. Parking & Drives - The alley behind and to the north of the townhouse building is a one-way alley. 'fhis will tend to relieve Front Street trallic, as the majority of the townhouse development traJIic will have to enter the development from the Locust Street side and exit to Walnut Street. This arrangement appears to support the park area proposed along Front Street. If a two-way drive were to be considered on the alley, a major building and site redesign would have to occur to accommodate the additional 10 feet of drive width. Sufficient parking has been provided as proposed. 6. Curb & Ci-utter - The drive is shown with no curb on the north side of the proposed alley. A "non-surmountable curb" is proposed on the south side of drive. City ordinances and standards require 8-6/12 concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the proposed alley. 7. Grading & Drainage - Grading and drainage are not sufficiently described by the documents submitted thus far. Surface drainage and storm sewer calculations must be provided to the City Engineer. Review by the City Engineer is ongoing. 8. Landscaping - No landscaping plans have been submitted so we are unable to comment in that regard. The lIRA is anticipating that it will enter into a contract with Hans Hagen Homes at their April meeting. Ilans Ilagen Ilomes has represented that the entry level price {c)r the homes would be above $200,000.00. Modifications necessary to satisfy engineering concerns should be incorporated into the Preliminary Plat and into the Development Stage CUP request to be considered by the Commission in Mayor June. This area should be considered a prime redevelopment site, given its location and views, and the City is facilitating the project with a significant financial investment. As a result, any project should be made to demonstrate its full consistency with the objectives of the Revitalization Plan, including the Plan's interest in promoting active, urhan architecture and energy for further redevelopment projects in the area, . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend to the City Council that a Conditional Usc Permit be allowed fen a concept stage Planned Unit Development and allowing residential Uses on the first floor in the CCO District, subject to the conditions determined by Exhibit "Z" [Under this alternative the developer will submit an applicationfhr a preliminmy plat and development staxe planned unit development. to he processed in the M(~y or June Planning cycle-l 2. Motion to recommend to the City Council to deny the conditional use permit Llc)r reasons to he determined hy the C'ommissionj. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move Alternative 1 ahove. . SUPPORTING DATA . Exhibit "Z" - Conditions to Allow a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Site Location Map Aerial photo Grading Plan of "Riverwalk" (revisions dated 3/13/02) Conceptual Preliminary Plan of "River walk" (revisions dated 3/l31(2) . . . . . Exhibit "Z" "Rivenvalk" by Hans Hagen Homes April 4, 2002 The Concept Stage Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow for the in the CCD District: 1. Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval shall be subject to the review and approval of the Design Advisory Team of the City of Monticello. 2. The project grading, drainage and utilities must be developed subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. The five foot wide public sidewalk along Front Street shall be located entirely on the public right of way and at \cast one tClOt distant from the property line of the Riverwalk Development, parallel to Front Street. 4. The preliminary plat and development stage planned unit development shall remove all encroachments into public right of way and address encroachments onto adjacent lots. A copy of covenants and by-laws of the homeowners' association must be submitted to the City. 5. Concrete curb and gutter in a 8-6/12 design with concrete drive approaches shall be provided on both sides of the proposed alley according to city ordinances and standards or in accordance with the direction of the City Engineer. 6. Complete landscape plans shall be submitted for development stage Planned Unit Development consideration. 7. Buildings must meet or exceed the minimum building height requirements of the eCD District. . . . Planning Comlll ission Agenda - 04/02/02 8. Consideration of a recjUest for a variance to lot width in order to allow for a sim _Ie subdivision creatin two lots from one arcel. A) licant: Church of St. Henrv (JG) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The church of St. Henry is requesting a variance to the minimum 80' lot width in order to allow an existing parcel to be subdivided into two 66' wide lots fronting 4th Street. The existing parcel, located west of the church parking lot on the corner of Minnesota and 41h Street, (see exhibit A) consists of Lots 4,5,6, and 7 of Block 22. The parcel is 37,308 sq. ft, with a fi'ontage of 132' and an existing single fami I y home on the east corner. StalT speculates that these four lots were administratively combined into one legal parcel unbeknownst to the church or prior to the church's purchase for case of county record keeping. The church would like to simply split the lot in half along the same lot line used in the original plat. Chapter 23 of the City Zoning Ordinance establishes a set of criteria from which variance applications arc to be evaluated. The ordinance states that when considering requests Cor variance, the planning commission must make a finding that the proposed action wi 11 not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. b. lJnreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. c. lncrease the danger oUire or endanger the public safety. d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. The ordinance further states that a non-economic hardship should be demonstrated to justify approval of variance requests. In consideration of the request for a variance to lot width, staff believes the request can be justified for the following reasons: 1. The width of 66' is the standard lot size in our downtown original plat district and all lots with this dimension were deemed "lots of record" when the ordinance requiring wider lots was established. Planning COl11l11ission Agenda - 04/02/02 2. The lots being combined into one parcel wasn't of the church's doing, therefore it could be argued that the original lot dimensions or parcels should be reinstated as lots of record. :;. The new lots wi 1\ sti II far exceed the standard for total sq. ft. as \vell as meet all other lot requirements in our downtown district. 4. The proposed simple subdivision (which has prompted the variance request) follows the intent of the code, which is to allow for narrower lots in our original platted R-2 district. 5. Approval of the variance rcquest will not adversely impact sunounding propcrties. StafTfecls it pertinent to inform the planning commission, the church, and the parcels future buyer of the rights ofa substandard lot and issues that \villneed to be addressed if this variance and subdivision are approved. I.) In actuality this simple subdivision will create two substandard lots of record which need to abide by the following provision in our code: A /01 olrecord l111ich does nol meellhe requiremenls ol/his ordinance as to ({re({ or Il'idlh ma}' be ulilizedjhr sing/efcl/nil}' delached dll'e/ling purposes provided Ihe Ineusuremenls (?lsuch urea or 1\'idth ({re wilhin seventy-five percenl olthe requirements of this ordinance. Therefore although the R-2 district allows for'T\vo Family Dwelling Units, since these lots will be substandard, they are allowed to be used for single-family detached structures only. 2. A survey of the existing parcel revealed the f(Jllowing: a. The existing building on the east corner of the parcel does not meet the sidcyard setback requirement of 20 feet for a structure on a corner lot. theref<xe it is an existing nonconforming structure. b. The existing garage encroaches approximately 3' into the Public Right-Or:.. Way and will have to be either be removed or moved to meet code. Planning COll1mission Agenda ~ 04/02/02 ALTERNA JIVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to approve the variance in lot width and simple subdivision based on the findings noted in this report with the following condition: a. The existing garage be either removed or moved to meet code. ) Motion to approve the variance in lot width and simple subdivision based on the findings noted in this report. 3. Motion to deny the variance based on the finding that the applicant hliled to demonstrate a non-economic hardship to justify approval of the vananee. 4. Motion to table the action subject to further study. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the requestcd lot width variance and simple subdivision request for the preceding justifications \vith the noted condition. The variance will allow for a simple subdivision of a large parcel of land into two parcels that are consistent with the intent orthe original downtown plat and \vill create an opportunity for redevelopnlcnt in an area in vv'hich redevelopment is needed. Although stafl' feels that this variance and simple subdivision request is justified, it doesn't necessarily believe that this is the best solution for the church or the neighborhood. Staff has discussed possible alternatives with the church as \veIl as future issues that may come into play when picce-mealing the church property off and would like to continue to assist in the redevelopment of this property. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Location Map Aerial Photo Site Plan ~ FOURTH STREET ~ ..- S 64"14' 55" E 133.32 __ I I 66,66 -ts6.66 ~ I~ '0" I ~ \ '" , '" I I I r 26. '5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,~ ~ 0) ~ ~ 0) ~ 8 1 6 'l~ 32 ~ ~ '" ~ .. 32 .:>." ~ ::: ~ .. "- ~ p ~~ lr) ~~ -. - "l.U- i I .. .. -. - - -- -- -- - - .-- 1- -- -- - -.-- I I i I I I i I I i I ! I I , I ::: 0\ .. .. ~ ~ <: 5 3 A- I \ 66.46 66."6 I -- N 64012' 31" iW 132.92 -' 100 , qCi,1 I I -...... I CJ I ~ FXCEPTIpN-~~ ____ I i~ - -----k. .f.".,(....~ Ii' 'I i ~o+-~ : , - ----r-- I . -- .-- .- -~ -- -- - --. -1_ - .- -- -- . _ .. _ ___. _ L -~-.~t1~ ----_ ;____ _____ 100 III :. z: III > <\ < f- o III III Z z 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/02 9. Consideration of calline for a special meetinll to interview applicants to iill vacant planning commission position. Roy Popilek has given notice of resignation from the Planning Commission. I lis last meeting will be on June 4, 2002. An add will run for two weeks in the Monticello 'rimes beginning April 4 and the Planning Commission should determine a date and time to interview for the position. Jeff will address this when he returns on April] .