Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 12-02-2003 . . . ~~<0~ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 2, 2003 6:00 p.m. Members: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart and David Rietveld. Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Council Liaison: Staff: I. Call to Order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held November 3. 2003. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for conditional use permits to allow 24 townhouse units in an R-2 District and a request for preliminary plat approval. Applicant: Homestead Multi-Family Development Corp. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision for 824 East River Street. Applicant: KazlPingel 7. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow for first floor residential units in the CCD and concept stage approval for a PUD. 8. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Downtown Revitalization Plan to allow building setback to accommodate front yard parking on Block 52. Applicant: Steve Johnson. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Comprehensive Plan to allow front yard parking on Block 17. Applicant: Wells Fargo 10. Adjourn OA"'"N'WORO'FORMSI'I.ANNING COMMISSION AGENDA . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday - November 3, 2003 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Lloyd Hilgart, Dave Reitveld, Rod Dragsten and Richard Carlson. Absent: City Council Liaison, Bran Stumpf Staff Present: Jeff O'NeilL Steve Grittman 1. Call to Order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m and declared a quorum present noting the absence of Council Liaison Stumpf. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 7, 2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Dick Frie requested that the Planning Commission discuss barricade of parking lot drive in the private parking area adjacent to the Smith and Hayes law firm office. Jeff O'Neill reported that the barricade restricting vehicle movement between properties was recently installed. He noted that he has not talked to the property owner regarding the installation but surmised that it was done to restrict traffic from entering the Smith and Hayes parking area from the adjacent joint parking site tot he west. The parking lot to the west is a shared parking lot installed by Barry Fluth in conjunction with the Amoco site redevelopment. Although it is unfortunate that the access is cut-off due to the installation of the barricade, the property owner is operating within his rights to eliminate this access. 4. Citizen Comments. None. L Planning Minutes - 1113/03 . 5. Public Hearinu - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for expansion of drive through bankine facilitv and other site improvements. Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank. Minnesota. N.A. Steve Grittman reported that Wells Fargo Bank is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of its drive through banking facility and the construction of additional parking on its parcel. The land occupied by the bank was recently expanded as a part of the library location trade for the fonner Marquette Bank building. Wells Fargo is seeking the approval of a site plan that includes a future building addition and permanent parking lot design, as well as an interim project. The interim project includes the expansion of the existing drive through area and a temporary driveway along the west side of the existing building. Eventually, the temporary driveway would be replaced by the building addition. and the applicant would construct a parking lot along Walnut Street. Staff makes the following comments on the site plan proposed by the applicant: 1. The location of the parking lot along Walnut Street would violate the City" s Comprehensive Plan direction to require a maximization of commercial building frontage on this street. 2. The interim improvements appear to be consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed . by the City, and would not interfere with either the building addition or the future circulation plan on the site. 3. The improvements for the parking lot on the former library site would interfere with the long term objective to construct a commercial building on that corner. 4. The City has designated land for a parking lot on the southwest corner of this block. designed to retain the existing trees on the site, and to permit the remainder of the block to be developed with buildings. 5. With regard to the drive through facility, the use and circulation appear to meet the original concept plan. and should be able to facilitate the future development of the site. 6. The drive through arrangement of the A TM location will require additional review by the City Engineer to ensure that connections to 41h Street are properly located, and the turning radius around the drive aisle can be accommodated by passenger vehicles. The City's parking lot was designed to accommodate both overflow parking from the Towne Centre project and public parking to be used by the commercial facilities on the Wells Fargo Block, including the expansion ofthe Wells Fargo building. By approving the current plan, an excess of parking would be present on this block, and the frontage along Walnut for this entire block length. This would be counter to the direction of the Comprehensive Plan that calls for maximizing the . building frontage along Walnut, and efforts to screen parking areas from Walnut Street exposure. 2 Z- Planning Minutes - ] 1/3/03 . Moreover, as noted above, the parking lot as designed would preclude future building in that location by placing storm sewer in the middle of the proposed parking lot. When the City transferred this land to the bank, the City did not abandon its planning objectives. Wells Fargo's original concept plan, reviewed and approved by the City. showed a new commercial building at the corner of Walnut and 4th Street in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the better plan would be to try to convince Wells Fargo to leave the corner location vacant until a commercial building is economically feasible. Parking dcmand can be absorbed by the public parking lot on the corner adjacent to the railroad tracks that would provide adequatc parking for Wells Fargo. and overflow for the future commercial and Towne Centre. Unfortunately. it does not appear that Wclls Fargo can bc convinced that following the Comprehensive Plan can be made to work. Susie Wojchouski reported that the Design Advisory Committee concurs with the staff recommendation and believes that placement of a parking lot on Walnut as proposed runs counter to the comprehensive plan. . Harold Riche representing Wells Fargo indicated that it was his understanding that the City Council waived aspects of the Comprehensive Plan when they exchanged the fanner !vlarquette Bank property for the library site. In a letter from the City, Riche noted that the terms of sale indicated that there would be to requirement to place a building on Walnut Street. Jeff O'Neill indicated that the letter released the Wells Fargo from placing a building at the corner as a specific term of sale. but he was not m:vare if it was the City Council's intention to release the Wells Fargo from compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which does not allow parking along Walnut. Riche noted that Wells Fargo would not have made the trade if the deal did not include the use of the property as currently proposed. It was his understanding that the terms of the Ictter freed Wells Fargo to allow parking along Walnut. He also noted that the site could be modified by allowing head-in parking along Walnut as noted and would also include ample landscaping along parking lot boundary. Dick Frie noted that it appeared to him that the terms of the letter has provided clear direction and that it is difficult to make a recommendation contrary to the expectations outlined in the letter. . DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION AS PROPOSED, INCLUDING THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRIVEWAY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLAN FACILITATES THE EXPANSION OF THE BANK SITE AND THAT EXPANSION WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE WITHIN THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS NOTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION INCLUDES CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 --L Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 . AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN tvl0DIFICATION IS INTENDED TO IDENTIFY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES LIMITING PREFERRED MAIN STREET DESIGN. DAVE REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH LLOYD HILGART VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stal!e planned unit development and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and variance for parking. Applicant: Walnut Plaza Partnership. Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking approval of a commercial project along Walnut Street south of 3td Street The project would retain the existing James and Gruber building. and construct a new building along Walnut Street v,:ithin the existing parking lot. The existing building is approximately 4.750 square feet in area. and the new building would add approximately 12.900 square feet of new commercial space on two levels. a new total of 17,650 square feet on the project. The building would have a main level and a lower level with window exposure at the sidewalk level. The project plans show a parking lot of 38 spaces, including parking that utilizes accesses in the . alley area. Walnut Street is also shown with angled parking consistent with the City's Walnut Street improvement plans. The CCO District includes a clause that permits developers to reduce their parking supply to 60% of the standard requirement under certain conditions. These conditions include an agreement that the parking lot will be made open and available to any vehicles (during reasonable business hours). The applicants also have the opportunity. on approval of the City. to pay into a public parking fund that is designed to accumulate funds for acquisition. construction. and maintenance of centralized public parking at locations chosen by the City in the downtown area. The theory behind this ordinance relies on the ability of different commercial users to share parking on a single block. relying on differing peak use periods to avoid congestion. When that congestion does occur. street parking should be available to accommodate any overflow. In this case, the required parking. according to the standard zoning regulations, \vould be approximately 79 parking spaces. At 60% {assuming the parking lot is open to others. the requirement would be 48 spaces. As noted, the site plan shows 38 spaces. a deficit of 10 spaces from the City's reduced allowance. Moreover, the applicant has located the parking lot adjacent to the neighboring parcel. with no setback as is typically required. This design can be accommodated by the PUD process. and the neighboring property owner. Ace Hardware. has indicated that he will allow cross easement . parking thus enabling the zero setback along the border between the two parking The concern 4 --L Planning Minutes - 1113/03 . with the proposed layout. however. is that no connection to the adjoining Ace Hardware site is provided with this plan. Planning stafr would recommend at least one connection to the Ace Hardware lot to justify the concept of open use of the parking area. This will likely reduce the available parking on the proposed plan by two or three more spaces. The question becomes whether the City wishes to grant a variance or consider a reduction in the number of required spaces and accept a parking fund contribution. It should be noted that future expansion on the other two lots (Ace Hanhvarc and Napa Auto Parts) could be affected by any deficit approved on the Walnut Plaza site. The City has previously discussed the latter concept. given the availability of parking in Walnut Street. The funds received from the applicants for their parking deficit (for 12 or 13 spaces based on a final site plan) would be able to be applied to Walnut Street improvements that would provide as many as 18 on-street spaces in this block. As a result, there should be adequate parking in the area. provided that the buildings are designed to accept entrance from the Walnut Street side as well as the parking side. . Rod Dragsten asked if there will be enough parking space left over for the other stores on the block to expand if the proposed expansion occurs. Jeff O'Neill noted that each property owner will have the capacity for expansion if they provide public parking. Dick Frie noted that the variance to the parking standards is not needed if the parking fee is provided which would fund parking on Walnut. Are the applicants aware of this requirement? Jeff O'Neill noted that the applicant is aware of this situation. Fred Patch reminded the Planning Commission that the building design is conception and will likely to be modified, however not to the extent that concept PUD approval will need to be readdressed. MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING LOT DESIGN WITH A ZERO SETBACK, WITH THE CONDITION THAT A CONNECTION TO THE ADJOINING PARCEL IS PROVIDED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUD FACILITATES JOINT PARKING USE WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL NEED FOR PARKING FACILITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING THE DEFICIENCY IN PARKING STALLS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SHORTFALL WILL BE ACCOMMODATED VIA CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARKING FUND AS OUTLINED ABOVE. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5 l 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance from the requirements of the zonim! ordinance restricting signs from being placed in public riQht ofwav. Applicant: Jeff Sell/West . Metro Pontiac Buick GMC. Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking a variance from the City's sign ordinance and right of way ordinance that require all pri vate signs to be located upon the property of the ov.-ner. and according to the required setback regulations of the zoning district. In this case. the proposed signs have already been erected. and are on the right of way of Sandberg Road. There are three such signs for which the applicant is requesting this variance. The site is zoned B-3. Higlm:ay Commercial. and currently has other signage (both wull- mounted and freestanding) that identify the applicant's business to traffic along 1-94 and Trunk Highway 25. Variance requests are to be reviewed as whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, the applicant has highly visible property and is seeking an advantage in sign display that is denied to other commercial concerns. The applicant has occupied the property for some time. and there does not appear to be any unique property conditions that make the use of the property unreasonable or uneconomical. Moreover. private advertising signs within the right of way could interfere with traffic visibility and street maintenance operations, creating and unsafe condition. Because there is no specific . hardship to support a variance in this case. the granting of such a variance could lead to concerns of precedent and how other requests might be reviewed. The City is obligated to apply its zoning regulations equitably among the various properties in the zoning district, and could have trouble denying future requests for similar signs. Jeff Sell noted that the sign along Chelsea is important to providing direction to Customers. He noted that Chelsea road Boulevard seems exceptionally wide at this location and it did not appear that he location of the private sign interferes with the public use of the boulevard. He requested that he be allowed to leave it there until the City can prove that it needs the boulevard. Rich Carlson felt that the signs were not in locations where they would create a problem relating to public use of the right of way. Dick Frie asked how long the signs had been there. Fred Patch indicated that they had been there a while. Jeff O'Neill noted that allowing signs in the right of way would set a significant precedent and open the door to similar requests in many other commercial areas. He also noted that use of the public right of way for private signs would require execution of a lease agreement between the City and property owner ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE. BASED ON A FINDING THAT. NO HARDSHIP EXISTS, AND THAT PLACEMENT OF THE SIGNS AS PROPOSED 6 L . . . Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 COULD RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD TO TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND ALLOWING SUCH SIGN WOULD SET A SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO REFUSE SUCH REQUESTS BY OTHERS. DAVE REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DICK FRIE AND RICHARD CARLSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to zoninf:! ordinance to allow sandwich board signs in the right of \Va\" in the CCO (Central Communit\" District), Steve Grittman reported that staff has prepared a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would make an allowance for a sandwich board as portable signs \vithin the City. The attached amendment would make a special allowance for small portable signs (which includes sandwich boards) within the City subject to the following requirements: 1. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, Central Community Zoning District. 2. The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5) feet of the entryway of the business it serves. 3. The placement ofthe signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. If on the public sidewalk. such signs shall be placed so that no less than six feet of sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians. 4. The signs shall display messages oriented toward pedestrians. 5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor included any lighted or moving component. 6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it serves. 7. The signs shall be constructed of wood or other materials determined acceptable by the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD zoning district. and shall not be composed of fluorescent colors. The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (4) feet in height and six (6) square feet in area, and must comply with all other regulations of this ordinance. Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the City of Monticello by the owner of the sign for any liability or claim made involving the sign or sign location. 7 1- Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 . No sign shall be permitted to be attached to any public structure or facility. O'Neill noted that the Design Advisory Committee supports the development of sandwich board signs as being consistent with the redevelopment plan. Dick Frie asked why we are not allowing such signs in other districts. Al Loch noted that the other businesses in other districts have greater building setbacks which provides space in front for display of Pylons. and temporary signs. They also have a better angle for viewing wall signs from the right of \....ay. Sandwich board signs are intended for temporary placement on the boulevard in areas where pedestrians frequent. Such signs are not necessary in Highway Commercial areas. Dave Reitveld suggested that the ordinance be amendment to include one sign per business. DAVE REITVELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT SUCH SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT \VITH THE INTENT OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND WITH THE RECOMMENDA nONS OF THE REVITALIZATION PLAN. MOTION INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LIMITING . SIGNS TO ONE SIGN PER BUSINESS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 9. Consideration of a request for a concept stal;e planned unit development approval for residential and industrial uses. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC. JefT O' Neill reported that this item had been withdrawn at the applicant's request. 10. Consideration of a request to amend the Citv's Comprehensive Plan relating to the development of Block 52 (Highwav 25 and Broadwav). Applicant: Steve Johnson The applicant represents a development interest on Block 52. and is the owner of a portion of the property on this block. The site in question is the northwest corner of Highway 25 and Broadway, bounded by Walnut Street on the west and River Street on the north. The Comprehensivc Plan calls for a traditional downtown development pattern throughout the downtown area, including a sct of design standards that encourage and/or require a zero setback for building locations and parking areas that are placed behind the primary commercial buildings they serve. The proposed development would consist of the removal of most of the buildings along Broadway and River Street (retaining the one building at the corner of Broadway and Walnut), and elimination of the public parking lot along River Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant proposes . 8 ~ Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 . a Walgreen's Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all sides. and a row of residential units along River Street. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site plan for the Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that includes parking along the primary exposures to Highway 25 and Broad\'vay. in direct opposition to the traditional development pattern and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be willing to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a sense of the zero setback building required by the planning policies, as well as use building architecture that would be more traditional in nature. . However. the site plan shortcomings of this proposal are dramatic. Particularly at the prime intersection of the downtown area, a suburban style development \vould be contrary to foundation on which the Plan is built. and on which the City has spent considerable amounts of funds to help achieve. Although the applicants argue that their tenant will accept no other design due to economic requirements of their business. several other development projects have been completed or are proposed throughout the downtown area that reflects the objectives of the Plan. Among these include the Towne Centre project Landmark Square, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under consideration. In addition. the City has a significant area zoned for the style of project proposed by the developers. The B-J and B-4 zoned areas south ofInterstate 94 permit this type of commercial site planning. and various projects of this type are under way in those areas. The introduction of this type of site development in the core of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's planning process. nor with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout the downtown area. The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request at this time. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential merit, a public hearing should be called for formal consideration of the request at the December meeting. Steve Johnson noted that in recent years he has been making every attempt to attract users to the site. He noted that retailers generally have not been supportive of the zero setback requirements as defined in the redevelopment plan. To make the site attractive to retailers it may be necessary to allow parking along the edge instead of building. The appearance of available parking is a desired component of most retail developments. This is why Walgreen desires parking availability on at least three sides of the building. . It was noted by Susie Wojchouski that the Pine Street (Highway 25) edge is very inhospitable to pedestrian traffic and that it might make sense to allow parking along this edge and design the site so that the pedestrian traffic is buffered from the road edge. She noted that during sloppy road conditions it is impossible to walk on the sidewalk without getting splashed. 9 '2- Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 . It was noted by Johnson that the plan could include screening of vehicles with a corner monument, perhaps iron fencing or other landscaping to enhance the corner. The site designer noted that the site plan calls for parking equal or greater to City Code. O'Neill noted that the placement ofa building in the center of the block as proposed would appear out of place and at odds with the plan. However. moving it to the Broadway edge with setback for parking on Highway 25 might be an option that \vould be somewhat consistent with the plan. Either way. it would be appropriate to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Rod Dragsten asked if the site was being limited to a single use. Steve Johnson said no it is not limited to a single use. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELA TING TO BLOCK 52 AND REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG PINE STREET AND BROADW A Y. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 11. Consideration of a request to permit a re-use of an existing non-conforming building. Applicant: . Beth Austin. (NAC) Steve Grittman reported that the former Grimsmo funeral chapel at 530 West Broadway is located within a residential zoning district. The city permitted occupation of the building for office use following the relocation of the funeral chapel facility to the former City Hall site. based on a finding that the office did not expand the non-confornling use of the property (a requirement of the zoning ordinance for non-conformities). The o\vner of the property made various improvements to the property, including the installation of parking lot paving that violated the five foot setback and eliminating the opportunity to screen parking from neighboring residential parcels. The upper level of the building \vas previously used for residential purposes. This use would be nominally consistent with the parcel's zoning. An applicant is seeking to re-use the upper level for yoga classes. The applicant proposes evening and morning classes with occasional weekend use as well. The question for the City is whether this would constitute an expansion of non- conforming uses in the building. Planning staff s position is that the use is not allowed in the residential zoning district. and that an expansion of this type of activity would be considered prohibited by the ordinance. Moreover, even though the previous use of the building was commercial in nature. that use was discontinued several years ago. extinguishing any ""grand fathered" use rights it may have carried. . 10 7- . . . Planning Minutes - 11/3/03 Beth Austin was present to provide additional information regarding her use of the site. She noted that students would be coming on week nights. Richard Carlson speaking as a neighbor noted that the use of the site has grown since the original approval to use the site for office use. It was his understanding the site was limited and that such expansions were not going to be allowed. He believes that use of the upper level as proposed would constitute an expansion of a lawful non-confornling use. After discussion it was the consensus of the group that the use represents an expansion to a lawful non conforming use and that the applicant will need to apply for a zoning district amendment in order to use the property as proposed. The zoning district amendment should request changing the district designation from R-2 to PZM. The application should also include a signature from the property owner to the east. Including the property to the east is needed to create a contiguous PZM district. 12. Adiourn. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Recording Secretary II 1- ....' Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 . 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a reQuest for Conditional Use Permits to allow six four-unit townhouse buildings and a Preliminary Plat for 7 townhouse lots in an R-2 District. Applicant: Mike Schneider - Homestead Multi-Familv Development Corp. (NAC) A. Reference and Background. The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of six four-unit townhouse buildings on property along West Prairie Road, south of the Timber Ridge Townhouse project. The plat is a replat of four single family lots owned by the City and "The Brothers" plat, a single family plat that has existed for some time with no homes. Zoning and Density. The area is zoned R-2, and four-unit townhouse structures are Conditional Uses in the district. The zoning ordinance permits townhouses at a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area. Each of the proposed lots exceeds 20,000 square feet, and as such, the density requirement is met. All units would face public streets, including Prairie Road and a new cul-de-sac extending south from Prairie Road. . Preliminary Plat. The plat itself shows 7 total lots - 2 are located on City land north of Prairie, and five located to the south. Lot 5 of the southern group does not show a building. Due to the plat configuration, it does not appear that a building could be located on it to meet setbacks. This lot should be eliminated and absorbed into the adjoining parcel, as the Subdivision Ordinance does not permit remnant parcels. The applicant has inquired about the possibility of "simple subdivision" instead of a full plat. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a plat in all but a few cases. Those cases include lot combinations, and situations where one platted lot is being split into two new parcels. This project clearly does not meet those situations. Moreover, if subdivided without a plat, a complicated "metes and bound" description of the various lots would be necessary, resulting in legal descriptions that are unlikely to be accepted by the County Recorder. In short, the proposed simple subdivision request would meet neither City nor County requirements. . As noted, the design of the plat utilizes a cul-de-sac. The Subdivision Ordinance position on cul-de-sacs is to avoid them where possible. In this case, there does not appear to be a reasonable way to develop the plat without one, due to the shape of the existing property. Where used, the preferred design in an "oversized" cul-de-sac with a landscaped center island (maintained by the homeowner's association). There would appear to be adequate room to accommodate this concept due to the elimination of Lot 5 as discussed above. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 The redesign of the cul-de-sac would also benefit the driveway design for the townhouse units on Lot 4. This building relies on sharply turning driveways . which are often difficult to negotiate. It would also increase the rear yard setback for that lot - currently shown at 20 feet along the east lot line. This should be increased to 30 feet to meet the R-2 zoning standards. The City Engineer will review street design, grading and drainage, as well as utility plans for the plat. Conditional Use Permit. As noted, the four-unit buildings are allowed by CUP in this district. The density easily meets the zoning minimum due to significant oversizing of three of the parcels. The general layout of the units is reasonable, and the existence of all public streets in the project is the preferred design. The following issues are noted with the project: a. The center two units of each structure share a wide driveway. This design does not meet the zoning maximum of 24 feet wide driveways at the street. Planning staff recommends a landscaped island that divides the driveways to meet the maximum width standard. b. The project is set up for a single four-unit building on each parcel. No plans are provided for separate sale or ownership, nor are any association proposals provided with the application. The applicant should clearly describe the proposal for the association and common area maintenance. . c. The landscaping plan shows a row of trees along the freeway, and front yard trees at the ratio of one tree per unit. At least two trees are typically required to be planted, and no provision has been shown for foundation plantings around the buildings. Planning staff would recommend that any approval include a condition for additional tree and foundation plantings. d. As noted in the plat discussion, the cul-de-sac should be designed to be over-sized (according to the template provided by the City Engineer's office) with a center island to be landscaped by the developer and maintained by the association. The revised landscape plan should include this element. e. The City required that the developers of the townhouses in "Sunset Ponds" provide a landscaped berm along the interstate. The design of the berm is to include reasonable slopes with a height of 8 feet above the ground floor elevation of the adjoining structure. The purpose of the berm is to provide some sound attenuation from the adjoining freeway. This requirement should also be applied for this project. Planning staff is concerned that housing adjacent to the freeway would . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 have significant negative impacts from freeway noise. Such berms are commonly employed in other communities where housing adjoins the freeway, and the application of such a berm in this development would be consistent with the requirements made in the Sunset Ponds project. On the berm, a planting of intensive vegetation should be provided, including native grasses and wildflowers on the slope to minimize the need for mowing and maintenance. f. The project should include sidewalk on one side of Prairie Road that connects to the pathway in Timber Ridge. A future project would be necessary to extend the sidewalk to the east through the existing neighborhood. g. As with Timber Ridge, an intensive landscape buffer should be provided along the edge of the project shared with the single family neighborhood to the east and north. The current landscape plan shows no plantings in those areas. B. Alternative Actions. Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for six four-unit Townhouse buildings. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the zoning supports the use, and the proposal meets the density requirements for the area, subject to the conditions found in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding the existing single family plat is the most appropriate land use for the area, and the neighboring single family area would be negatively impacted by a townhouse project in this location. Decision: Preliminary Plat for six four-unit townhouse lots. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the plat, based on a finding that the plat is consistent with the zoning requirements, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the plat, based on a finding that the re-plat changes the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. 1 i 1 c. Staff Recommendation. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 Staff recommends approval of the CUP and plat, but only with the conditions found in Exhibit Z. The City has seen several townhouse projects in recent months. This proposal does not show the level of development amenities (mostly landscaping) that is present in the other projects the City has reviewed. Particularly because of the location of this project adjacent to the freeway, special care should be taken to ensure that negative impacts are mitigated. When a poor residential environment dominates a neighborhood, building quality and property values will suffer. As such, the changes recommended in Exhibit Z are designed to minimize those impacts, and bring this project in line with others recently approved. D. Supportinq Data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Site Location Map Preliminary Plat Grading and Drainage Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Building Floor Plans . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 . Exhibit Z 1. Elimination of the remnant lot (Lot 7 Block 2) to meet Subdivision Ordinance requirements. 2. Submission of a final plat and execution of a development contract prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Revision of the plat to show an over-sized cul-de-sac consistent with the City Engineer's template design. 4. Establishment of an association to maintain common areas, including the cul-de-sac island landscaping. 5. Elimination of sharply turning driveways. 6. Separation of combined driveways to meet City curb-cut width maximums. 7. Redesign to meet 30 foot rear setback standards. . 8. Increase number of boulevard trees per City standards and this report. 9. Provide landscaping plans for foundation plantings. 10. Provide a landscaped berm along the freeway per this report, consistent with the requirement for Sunset Ponds. 11. Provide sidewalk along Prairie Road to connect to Timber Ridge. 12. Provide landscaped buffer along the east and north boundaries of the project consistent with Timber Ridge and this report. 13. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage, utilities, and street construction. 14. Compliance with City Public Works direction for mailbox locations, garbage collection locations, street lighting, and other requirements. . 5 ...,.. ~ --e-. . 6, ~ s .......... JIt.c.~W ".0101" ..=rott~ .looI'':'C:, ~~~ Ie" 141 ~ &~l ~al ~ ,~ r I~ ~ q (1) . 'I o &~ ~a ~ = llll~ :-~~ () g 6 :( . 03 ;;: i ~ )( 0: ~ ."""- iII).4'c)C::. &H ~~l . 'I &~ ~a ~ .-- .......t),(;._ .... ~7~ () ;:~~ t ~ r ,~t ,;, ~b II ~ h8 h ~ r n , I ...1.... "'OQ/f'tr~ . )4'10,1:;. ~ if"~~! '.' J ~ ~ 2 ..~ ~ " Ii' J~ . i:~ -', Jl,.-------~ -., ---;i & ).. ---""' ~ ~ ~ ~ :-' ~.~~ ~ II.' ~ ~i~ ______________l_____ .... ~7: ~ ',~ ;1l ~Ij ~l ~ ~u ~J ~ ~ s I ~ ~ tl -~ .I~ W 0,.;, -%' "'_ Gi~ ~ ~ 2 !-UUUl ~uJ_ i1 ii1 . t ~ :-' ~e~ iil ~ ~::.~~ I~ 8 ,~ 9 ~ U !!J c"_I'H'" c~" I' ... .. :x ~ ~ r~"l )( i. -. ~ m = 0l11J lj! --i~~:)~- ---~-- -f---------- 00 li';~~ o:~ ~~~l' 0 ;I "I. tH ~al ~ ."""- .iIr4' 0(; I ~7~ l.~ I~ r i ----r;I ~a I tli-l>>M1 ~ 'f"',(: :. ,,~. .....\0'1'" ;;: Olllil ~~~ ~ 8 o -, --'5....--- - . 03 ;;: :x - ~ :. ~ ~ ~ &~l ~a ~ .-- .~'",c;;, .-- .)4' OG, ; Hl ) ~ J ~I J ~ J ~ ./ "t II ,. ii "I :1 III " ~, ;Ii ~ m ~! h 11 III 9 , .... j ... : . ~ I I' .' 'I ii ll' i :! II m g ~ g g ~ -<t ~ ~ ~ ; ~ I I ! EEE3 i EEEE 11m g - BIim mm tJ\ JJJJJ'I ~~ i , ~JJ!!I ~ ~ ~ I,ll Il ! l l'ltlll! ,.,HI '1'1'" !;Hlll ''1 J, 'I~ "'!jil I !il'~"HI' I 1,'1' II!!!'I ,,'1'111 , .1- t' H;:hH 1'11;111 ,j,l!jjj -------------------- '-'" ~ -e-- . ~ ~ 2 .....",., "'-0_ tiIc) lrr ...,... J~ ~ ~I~ ~ r I~ g Ii i5 8 \1~ 6 ~( l'l "I . ,3 &~ --- lit & 6;it.t1' Q,C_ .-- .jJol.' OC;. U~~ Ie" i~~ ~ ~ i "". ~ q iiI tH ~tl .$. .-- .M' c),C;, . 'I &" lit .$. .., J () ,~~ ~ ~,. ~i "t ~ l, zl ~ ~u ~~ ~ r~. I I S r.~ I ~ " .~"" p '(I/~~ I .),IIIO.~. . ",,' \J ' =::::. ./\~... i:ii z I -11 ~ .:. '\ "'''.' 1>>' 2 , --t "" .. " ~~---'~ --~~---~-- ""'" !l! I 0 0 , o ,.. 0 , . ~ ~ I I , , ~ ~~~ l ~~ Ii; " . ~AI "'. ~-------~:I ---~ ~ ~ ~ :-I ''''''- .)01' oc. ~T"G e~~~ ~6"~ ~r ----------____l_____ .., ~ J () 47~ ~ ~~~ "t "~ ~h z~ ~l: ,. Lh ifJ ~ f H ; r w ,-" -B-. ~ ~I I, ,- ------. --.,_.~~ , , i- ll>. Gi =< ~ ~ l ~ . " ~ ~-______~ AI --J (~ Jl 1... . ~ ""'", $ m 4 ~ ~ ;-l UH 1~. i~~ ~ a,tlt, c t~l ~al & "1 &" lit & i: :I ~ 1; rl~j] " ~, '. ~ ~ =. WI 0 (11! --:-~..~-]-. - ---~-- -f---------- _ 0 O. ~ 0.0 '! t. () 0'( ~,g'" 0 -,3 3 ~ t;l litl ~ --- ~ ...-' ~.c. ~ ! ,h I~ I~ 8 I~ ~" . Q ~ ~ l'l C&I'" ~"I' "* ....~t P" l ~ ~I~ ~ 8 o -, --'0.....--- - . ,3 i:. ~ i~ ~~ tH li&1 ~ t;l ;&1 .....u. oi "',G. Milo,' . Mt ",y .-- . 'I t~ lit '\ tt\ m ~ ~ ~ I' Jl ) JlI ,~ t " ~J!!i~~~ Ih;9!~i IJ1i,iGl s 9 I I tltllill , j,l", IIlH!i! ~::lit' , 11.!jili i liihHi 1111l!!'1 ""111 'jhl,l, t' ill;l:!H I' "Ilt .l.i!iil h ,I rl [I UI g . .... i ~d Ii ~ P od :1 " g e ~ -t ~ ! ~ ~ lr ~ I I ! g . I mil ~ .I ~ g Ii ~ .. II I :! ~ . I ;n .. ! m ~ ~ ~ J ~I J , m I ~ ~I em ~ '. It "'" ~ -e- ...."'" 1II~.;jt/IItT ...,... ..~llIWNII!'. .~. OC;;, 8~~ i~~ i4.l ~ ... I~ r I~ i q 19iH "itl ~ = 1lI1~ ~~~ is 8 6 :( . ~ i:: ~ ..: " ~ ~ ''''''- "'M'QoC:;, . 'I S" ~t ~ ~ ,H "itl ~ .""'- ~ ",,' 0(:. ... ~~I ~ ~ij ~i ~ t., ~. k ~~~ dJ ll; (;it-~ III ,. " I '~ :: ~. ~ . ~~ 01. ~ ,41 Ii, "0 N. J.-------~. ---'. s ~ -:1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ :-< ~:~i ____________~!t_____ ... J () ,~~ ~ ~~~ q i ~h ~A hI ~J ~ i ~I :4 ~ J' .\ v..I 0...:, ~ -e- ~ ; I I. i. III (;i < ,. ,- ~ ;~ ~-------~ ~ --J (~ ~ .!.. :1 N S ~ ~ ~ ~ J e~ e~ i6~ ~ "I ~;l .\ ".x;M'T~ ~~ - ,"._~' .._-........--~_.-,:--~,- ---"-~ .. j;: :I ~ ~ r~tl " ~. '. HI . r ~ ~I~ :'. g --~~--- . .3 ----~l "itl ...... .\ ~.r,;.. II~" II .. 1Ir, "" jIo4' (lI.~, J ~2~ I~ JJl h !/ ,I !I a t~ if a II m ~ ~ Illll'~ I'i'h,'! 1!.!"ll ~::IHI': '1'!li I Ili!hlli 11'lliIP, 1'1'111 , ,I' . "I,. I' . "'1" f "I'!' "t \' "Ii ,I,i!iij I w ~ ' .! ~ ~ " - , Ii ll' il :f " ,...:...,----....;""'"""",-.'~,- ...;.,',..-.'7:.:~;^:.:.:.~ "." ".- . ,,"..,-, ". J , ! m j I - ~ ,I of e !1 ~ 1/ III J :! ~' , .- ! ! dl .. ~ ~ ~ J ,I J - e ~ J em omo .~~." .~'QK;. ~~~ !i~ ~ ....,.., ~..i:.4IO IrJ' ...,.,. I~ r I~ ~ ~ ~~ 19t~I li31 I( ~ ~I~ l< AI IS g 6 ~( . 03 .. .-- .W'IC),(;. 1: I d:: x ~ ~ .--- .W' ,1.1;;. t~I -\31 I( VI ~ -a- . 'I &~ 'i3 I( t ~ ~ .., ~d ~ yl~ Jt e ~b Zl j t I ~. k ~h iJ iii .. r -. - I .J. ... ..-t>- 4IIM'IO'..e. II> G;-i~ I ~. ~ :: ~ ~ . :~ ..... " ~ i'AI wii, e-------~:I ---~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;-I -------------------- I .~ __ ,_ __ ,_ _ _ ~,. _ _ (,,~I"'G ~ i ;1 I ~ ~..~~ ~M~~ ---------___:!t_____ .., ~~~ ~ r~~ d~ (;\ ~h B ~ 1-.--...------- I 1 II> G;~' . . ~ ;1 ~-------~ ~--j ~ ~ ~- ~ · i ~ w ......, ; ~ ~ ---&- t H .l,~ ~ U~~ I . ~ I~ .- -?H,. --- i '~:t""- . - m ;f ~ :- i [~~l ~ 0 6~ .::'~ ~ w'w~' . iit --3~~-]-- ---~-- -f---------- HI 08 a:~i I( q:<< ~ f' ~ 0 03 :'''. ~ ;31 ,,8 " ~.:x.If'l~ . ;14' {i,e. oUIt"..~, ,"..IINt~G r ----JI 'i81 -.. I( ",~,.".. .....,t' ~ !I~ ~ 8 --0.:1._-- . 03 . '( &~ 'i3 I( 4IIi1r4' 0.(:. t.:. ~ ~ ~ ~~ .--- ~ ..-- .W'f)c,. . 'I &~ -,\8 I( Wl , ~ I IIllli~ 1,..1...\ '1'1'1' I,' i.li Htlii'l ,!I"'!I' I "Ii 'Iill!!!i I Ill!!', "f'lll ".,, . ;(['; ': f "['f,III' l~ (.11 ll,l!iii al h III Q q d)- .i 'i i Ii So! n (r. I :1 " g mIl ~ LBIB 2 1. ~ ! ! ~ II' ~ a m ~ ;::: g "l: ~ !' at :! ~, ;n' ~ t ~ ~ ~I J a JIm - i ~ ~I mia LBIB . I I .; I -,! \ " \' \ \ \ . \ \\ \ ~. O~Clt \ \ <- s \ a'OM aJU ~~ ONI1';I'J ~ I " ", '" /0 '" .,. ~ ~ 'i' ~ " ", :>018 f1' I. 'NOIJlOaV ONl )~~ ~38 C-=-lln~~ al~N31' \ (>ooa i~~'O)d ./ , I ,'I I, 0 .f -~';. L, ~ J I .: l.:; I l__ L f>;, I floE 1-: D~A/ +-u~"T"'s. /~ s \ I I' I' / ~" I' ..-, /.. I' 4-/ /\~\ / \\ I' . \\ > . ~ "'" ~ - ~ ~ ./ , , / , , / , , / I' I' o '- -;- 5 0- Il 0 -:!(, II -J ~ II \V " ~ " 'V1 / 'L ---==: ,."".J - ... ... - 11 --- __==--- / ...----:.................. ~ ,- - - - , : ~I f , I I : / I' / " I' / " " / / ~ . . . Planning Agenda - 12102103 6. Consideration of a simple subdivision reauest: Location is Lot 7.8 BJock 16 or 824 East River Street: Aoplicants. ioint owners - Eu~ene PineeJ and James Kaz. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In reviewing a survey of their property the owners found that a small part of the neighboring home to the west encroaches onto the their parcel. Pingel/Kaz found that they cannot sell their property until this boundary problem is resolved. The method proposed for solving the problem is to create a new boundary line located 6' (minimum setback) from the adjoining home. The land created by this subdivision would then be attached to the parcel to the west. Creating a lot line at this location would bring both parcels into conformance with code and also clear up title problems for the Kaz property thus enabl ing the sale of the land. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to approve the simple subdivision as proposed on the attached survey. The motion based on the finding that the subdivision will result in two parcels with dimensions and setbacks that are in conformance with City Code. 2. Motion to deny approval of proposed subdivision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. The proposed subdivision eliminates a setback problem and results in two parcels with dimensions and setbacks that are in conformance with City Code. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of survey/site plan, pictures. ~Mc:. S .. C. i '^ Jv 0.. +( lI. T- .C... OC'lC- -P- Po ;,~..J ...~ Au. <1 '''1 V. -P. h~.. 51. e-e...,.... '. f 'f61 K 1 <. I:'/....c. -t-h pi" . ~ 110,""\ A ... ~...........c.. i>,~..l. N \33.1~ f-t-. ~ .1-.1- '=..'BH< .... ~ l}... (:) f-+- b f- LoT" 5. 13 I \~ I ~ R IllER STREET ~ ------------------- . =:::.. oPOo ctQ o:fPO . N'" J~ ........" u.. .. '''' , '\ !>OSl llEl ' '8 ''1( ~ '-,,~ ,. S 5go5J' lJw E 1\ I \ / I 1/ t4'\ ct I ( ..,OOO~ 1 1-"0 I.: / / / I I I / I I I / I !' / -- / I / I I " /1 . I ---;;-2:---IB' "".2 - --;.,,- :-"'---1 / I / N 59056' .17" Wi - .1.1, 0.1 .... / ",/ 1..' I ~I.." ~ / / I I I I / I / I / / / I I / / I I I / I I / / / / I I I / 16/ / / I .J '3" 1../ ,,~ 1\ do" / ,!loci \.. I ~~\l I ~ I ~ I I \ I I + -.. ,J,J.O__ J _ _./ ----I I \ --';-. - _ N 5905(J' J7w W \ '......... !Wty tlJrE" OF' tOl 1 11 I I ..... I I I 1.." ! (.6". ~ 1 ~ . ~ :i " l&" ~ <4>. ,.. 6 ~ "- .... ... ~ '" . g~ l$~ ~ ~ ~ . ", ... ~ ... I .) 1.11,92 - I I ~ :so ~ . ~ ..... 27.7 ------ .. '" .0# ... '" 27_9 ------ 6 ~ ~'\ . <p' ,'!l ~' t\). ,,-- ~ ~ ~ ... ..... ~ ~ tr, 99, 12 / / / BOOK / PAGE F~J29 J9 Lots 7 and 8, Slock 76. LCNER #l)NTICELLO, according to the recorded plot thereof, Wright County. Minnesoto except thot port of soid Lot 7 described os follows: Seginning at the most westerly corner of said Lot 7; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of soid Lot 7. 0 distonce of JJ.07 feet to the most northerly corner of the Southwest JJ.oo feet of said Lot 7 os ".asured at 0 right angle to and parallel with the southwesterly line of said Lot 7; thence southeasterly parallel with said southwesterly line of Lot 7, 0 distance of JJ:OJ feet to the intersection of 0 line drown northeast fron the midpoint of said SQuthwesterly line of Lot 7 to the midpoint of the northeasterly line of soid Lot 7; 'hence southwesterly olong soid intersection line, a distonce of J3.01 feet to said midpoint on the southwesterly line of Lot 7; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly line. a distance of JJ.04 feet to the point of beginning. t>>IL Y EAStAENTS CW MCCRO PLAT ARE SKMN CW THIS SLRVEY LNtlSS ADD IT I(7lIAL lXXWENTA TlCW OF OTIER EASEAENTS OF RECORD ARE PROVIDED TO lIS. StBJECT TO PUBL IC RIGHT OF WAYS AM) tASOLNTS OF RECORD IF ANY. I HEREBY CERTIFY THA T THIS SLRV[Y PLAN OR REPCRT WAS Pf?[PARED BY AC OR LNJER MY DIRECT SlRERVISION AND THAT I AAI DUly REGISTERED LANa SURVEYOR f.N)ER THE LAH6 OF THE STATE OF AlINNESOTA. ~ /0 -z -03 DATE -t:/. TAYLOR REC. StaT OF: SCALE DATE DRAWN: 10/16/03 FLE N1. 03576 l1N. OR 2OF'T. . . . lo .....~. . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 7. Public Hearina: Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow residential dwellinas on the around floor within a CCD Zonina District Applicant: Barry Fluth. (NAC) A. Reference and Backaround. The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow the construction of 11 ground level dwellings (row houses) upon a 0.76 acre site located north of Third Street and west of Locust Street. The subject site is zoned CCD, Central Community District which allows ground level residential dwellings by conditional use permit. The proposed development constitutes the second phase of the Landmark Square project. The initial phase of the project, which borders the subject site on the north, consists of a mixture of commercial and residential uses and was approved approximately two years ago. CUP Requirements. According to the zoning Ordinance, ground level dwellings are allowed within CCD districts provided: 1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the CCD District. 3. Density for the ground floor residential units not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area, exclusive of land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. Downtown Revitalization Plan. The City's Downtown Revitalization Plan encourages reinvestment in the City's downtown area and the creation of higher residential densities which support/complement area commercial uses. As a result, the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan. Although this specific site is shown for commercial development, the city has viewed the land use patterns in the CCD broadly. Planning staff believes that residential use on this portion of the block is not inconsistent with the intent of the Plan. Pedestrian Traffic. The site is designed to encourage pedestrian movements along the periphery of the site with vehicular movements being confined to the site's interior. With il. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 . this in mind, the proposed development will not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the area. Density. As previously indicated, the maximum allowable density of the site is one dwelling unit per 9,000 square feet of land area. In calculating the allowable density for the development, both the subject property and Phase 1 site (to the north) must be included in the site area. With an overall site area of 88,345 square feet, a total of 9.8 (or 10) units are allowed. To comply with such density requirement, one dwelling unit will need to be eliminated. Subdivision. The subject site presently overlays three individual parcels of land. If the row houses are to be sold individually, the property should be subdivided such that the dwelling units correspond to individual/ots. Such lot configuration would however, require the processing of a PUD (to accommodate the creation of lots without public street frontage). If the property is to be owned by a single entity, the four lots should be combined into a single parcel of land. Site Circulation. Several concerns exist in regard to site circulation as summarized below: Drive Aisle Width. Access to the site is provided from the west via a 20 foot wide driveway from Locust Street. To allow safe, two-way traffic movements, the driveway should be increased from 20 to a minimum of 22 feet in width. . Garaqes 3 and 4. All proposed dwelling units are provided two stall garages. While the majority of the garages are accessed from within the interior of the site, Garages 3 and 4 are provided direct access to a public street (Locust Street). The allowance of such periphery garages presents both a visual concern (in regard to consistency of public presentation) and a functional concern (in creating pedestrian/vehicle conflicts). Garages should be designed to be no less than 20 feet by 22 feet in dimension. Garaqe 5. 6, 8 and 9. Access to these garages is considered problematic in that area does not exist to allow 90 degree turning movements necessary to provide access. The site plan should be revised to improve accessibility to these garage units. Garaqes 10 and 11. Some concern exists in regard to the proximity between Garages 10 and 11. Of issue are safety concerns over the possibility of simultaneous backing maneuvers (out of the garages). . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 Off-street Parkin!:!. According to the ordinance, single family dwellings must provide two off-street parking spaces per unit. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 35 parking spaces have been provided for the 11 dwelling units. To be noted is that the proposal includes 10 visitor parking stalls and 4 supplemental garage spaces. While parking beyond the minimum supply requirement (22 stalls) is typically considered a positive feature, it is believed such additional parking has resulted in deficiencies in site circulation. For this reason, it is believed the areas devoted to supplemental parking could be better used to correct the noted vehicular circulation concerns. In consideration of the site's "Downtown" setting, it is believed that visitor parking can be accommodated on street. It is acknowledged that some of the visitor parking on this parcel is designed to accommodate overflow from the commercial projects to the north. Nonetheless, the parking lot design needs to be functional. The existing parking lot shows a 22 foot drive aisle and shallow stalls. This area is already congested. As such, changes need to be considered to make this proposal work. Landscapin!:!. To date, a landscape plan has not been submitted. As a condition of CUP approval a landscape plan identifying the location, size and variety of all site plantings should be submitted subject to City approval. This plan should address perimeter plantings, as well as the treatment of the landscaped courtyards between the units and the garages. This area could be made a very attractive space if given adequate attention. Gradin!:!. Draina!:!e and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Suildin!:! Desiqn. Generally speaking, the proposed building designs are considered positive and through the use of several architectural features (i.e. dormers, grilled windows, front porches etc.) evoke an image consistent with the age of area buildings. While it appears that the buildings are to be finished in horizontal lap siding and brick, the elevations should be modified to specify finish materials. The Design Advisory Team should provide additional comment on architecture and materials. Cross Easements. Recognizing that the functioning of the site is dependent upon the use of the phase 1 site to the north, it will be necessary to establish cross access easements. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Liqhtin!:!. As a condition otCUP approval, a photometric lighting plan should be submitted which indicates the location and illumination levels of all outdoor lighting. , , I Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 . B. Alternative Actions. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground level residential dwellings within the CCD District based on the comments from the staff. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground level residential dwellings within the CCD District based on a finding that the submitted plans are inconsistent with goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground level residential dwellings within the CCD District subject to the submission of revised plans which respond to comments of the staff. C. Staff Recommendation. While the density and circulation concerns cited in this report are considered "correctable", it is believed such modifications will significantly impact the design of the . project. For this reason, staff recommends that the CUP request be tabled pending the submission of revised plans which respond to the issues identified in the report. If an approval recommendation is proposed by the Planning Commission, a list of recommendations is provided in Exhibit Z that should be attached to the approval. D. SupportinQ Data 1. Site Survey 2. Site Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Floor Plans 5. Conditions . ~ J-. CI'J ---1 1--- ----- - _n .~ ~ t) U J".. to! J-. ......, BiI 'I "' -t:Q 0 ~ II'~ .1111 : o .b s:: lid ,.e!1l rn t....> Ill, I:..... ~ II 11ft!; II -I . ...... nJ ; I .._,..,___'__.~~~..~~, '._0__________.. , I -IIi! . .--------...,.-...-..... ....._ .__..._.. u..__ ~~~ 2; ~ s ~~~ it ! ~5-~ III III 0 I .., OOlJ.,., I ....u. l l . __~_w._,~_~~,~ I ,II r ~~ iii llJ ~ :: .. s- II ft II II B ! 11 B 11 11 ! llJ ~ ). .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. It II ~~ -I .. .. i~ -, .. ... .. .. <> ..: .. " -, -, -I -, -I -I -, 'I -, I I I co ." 15 I_ 19 I. la !la II; Is !II a !I 51! I:: :: I I l89J~S lnU/DM JJO' O. ---=-- -~-_._~--._-~---.. -f f ~ _ _ (~~/\U\:,:".):,; - T".J-- ~f- - - - T- - - - - - - - - - - --, .'" ...; .";..;: ". "~ ' - '.~ I___n.__ -"'--T'- ,-- I \::t~~:~~~;,f_l:~~Jiii i=-_-~':~-' _ .---~=:::_~-r:-- ~_ I , , ~i-.~ ,~ --r- _ I .i.,.-...-:~::.~~::,;~-:.:~_.:;i...;...:--::,~--.::-: ',','. , '- , '."'.. ,.., -..":,'." I .-.-.---,,---.. .-- ----I 1:1l..' - ,..;(~:;!:;..y.:I:i\.:.{~j?\.: :--'------____1._ .___ " .. . ,_ < " '. " ... ~, ., r I {i:}:X.~: ~!~:fHJ:.~~~,HF i:=='== ===t:-= I -" ~..:-r~-?<:.I.~'~".,j___i__-~ - - -r----- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ /. I.- t 1./."<- t..~'i.;.~.~..:"""'..."'.~.;.. I ___~....L~__._~~ I ".J: ,.~;~ l.':r .~;'.f; .;-~!_-" a;:. ..;.:-=:<;7 'J'~. r -- ~ ~ ~ I '-'Ao...... ..-~..-~J"f,..".."':....-~.~..1,t.o,f I _..l.-_~~. ...., . - -=..:-..;;;.--~~-- ~ "0";"'><' ,'to ~..~{ '.~ .-i" -.J' ,~:' I ;r I ~ ' I I:t.....~,...\~. !;, :-'/' l....". ____-L, -:! - \ I ~"" S'i.l" "~I ,.... I = \ ...~ . *::..:" ..; . ... ~",a~. . . .,!-<'.-~"f~... -- (I -- I -.. : ~ z 73Q ~pfi I .... " : ",. '~", If , _ _ _ ~ I ...."" '.! ~ r " 7.7~i ~J ~I& I~~I ~/It ....~ ~----- l~ ~jli.,~t"- ~',. I.,: , ;: .1':. ~ .:..~,..:....l/'!.'~i ':~.~: Ij' 01'1.. . . f' . f..~: ~ .~~. I;:r~:; .~ ....;....:~ .:~: f:~:~:-:; ~i ~~.,-~::<;~~;~ ~ ---..-..... - T-- ., --- ... ,: I w '4 I-II---~:I-;; '--" II' -I"'"; I I.L..........I"'- ....... L.I _ --~---~- r - I ;r ~f.+ ~ RW V~:~~ : ~~U ~ ~ " ~/: r~" "'l.. 8 : 1= l! -=F=-=-~~ ~ I ~ ~ ,..., I>><< I: ~~'!Ir I II' L _..J _.J t -- 1 ~ I : 8: I I I , ..... " ~ ..... CI) 'ti ~ 1;;J.r~8~~i~;;l,:;.>- ..,-- L ""i .:-m ~ ~ ~ 'eln~f/d"Ti IllS ... ,.~:~/;.:;)::~~</~:<):: ~~ - ----; ,,-~:-- .....,.- -r.~.'-.o'(' ,-."- C 77).1 ~1lO . .,...- ~'" ',:'~:~~-'/,",. -':1 Il ....: ,~"" , ~ - . '. ," ,-- ~ ....~ ;:;::~i~; ~i > ..~"~;;.;-~;.t~:~1 f::~ tr ~ o ....... I ~ III I I I 118'_~"'I I "j ~ ,~l ~rL i;~~~:~.;.:~;,:,~~~~.;'~:J!~_'~;_~_)~_~:_.,: ,Ill. 1.,. ~. -. _r'" .... _' _ . . ,.I; ~J1I. ~ h ~_}>-r' ~-1 - - t:f v I:: ... ~~ .-. I 'fl' f[':~'"1 Ii il~ll F ~ ~ p~ :!I't I r , ......-r--... 1;;_ ~- h DDWG\10319LS2\Study2\A02-1.DWG, Layout1, 11/071200312:07:34 PM, sta26a .. J H~ ~ 1 ..... '-r ~ .~ ~ ~ - t. r------, t.) [ Q ~ ~ ;1 J = O! J ~ . ..... ...l ~ .Q ,,) ~ J ..... i ::> li -n -i L - 1 , ... [ CI] s::l M UJ. , . -- . .--..-- ~---- .-- ."..-.--- . . .."...-... ... un. .________.. , -- II Ir I! 'I i I I sl ......., (l.) (l.) E- I I ".. I :=J . - ...c= U Ii II I I JI' II ~~~ en --h~~ I 11 t:i(5 I o _1:I:l 0 ,.,. :i'l! ~ ~rz:I Wl= -,,- o .o::r:: ~ L ~g~ ~~ ~ t/)u I i.!I~ : III I rnp... I Ii ~ .11 .II!" I I --il I l I -; """- , .. .. u_ .~..~ _.n,._,'..,~~~_~,.. """ -~.~ ..~.~~' ..,..-....---- .'".~""-,. -- - ".... ~' ... .,.~. ,~ -=rr -tl-- ~ ,- vO lINn 3A08V ro lINn -, J 1 11 -....1 r"'---, lO (liNn I H:\ACADDWG\ 1 0319LS2\Study2\survey.dwQ, Layout1, 11/07/2003 01 :54:44 PM, sta26a I I I I I I -.J I I I I I I L----______l_______ I I , .1 I I I I I I __J I I I I I I L___ "-l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ...-' r--- I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12102/03 EXHIBIT Z Conditions: 1. The number of ground level dwelling units be decreased from 11 to 10. 2. The three parcels of land that comprise the subject property either be combined (if the project is to be owned by a single entity) or replatted in a configuration that allows individual unit sales 3. The site's access driveway (from Locust Street) be increased from 20 to f 22 feet in width 4. Direct garage access to public streets be prohibited. 5. The site plan should be revised to improve accessibility to garages 5,6,8 and 9. 6. Safety concerns over the possibility of simultaneous backing maneuvers from garages 10 and 11 be addressed to the satisfaction of the City. 7. A landscape plan be submitted which specifies the location, size and variety of all site plantings. 8. The submitted building elevations be modified to specify building materials. 9. Cross access easement be established with the Phase 1 site (to the north) subject to review and approval by the City Attorney 10.A photometric lighting plan be submitted which indicates the location and illumination levels of all outdoor lighting. 11. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading, drainage and utility Issues. 1 -1 . . . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 8. Consideration of a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan relatinq to the development of Block 52 (HiQhway 25 and Broadway). Applicant: Steve Johnson. (NAC) A. Reference and Backqround. At the November meeting, the Planning Commission heard a presentation regarding the development of Block 52. The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to permit the development of a Walgreen's facility with parking lot in the yard area between the building and the street. The Comprehensive Plan calls for storefront design that is built up to the street and sidewalk as commonly found throughout the traditional downtown area. Parking areas are to be placed behind the primary commercial buildings they serve. The applicant represents a development interest on Block 52, and is the owner of a portion of the property on this block. The site in question is the northwest corner of Highway 25 and Broadway, bounded by Walnut Street on the west and River Street on the north. The proposed development would consist of the removal of most of the buildings along Broadway and River Street (retaining the one building at the corner of Broadway and Walnut), and elimination of the public parking lot along River Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant proposes a Walgreen's Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all sides, and a row of residential units along River Street. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site plan for the Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that includes parking along the primary exposures to Highway 25 and Broadway, in direct opposition to the traditional development pattern and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be willing to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a sense of the zero setback building required by the planning policies, as well as use building architecture that would be more traditional in nature. The Design Advisory Team has reviewed the proposal and found that some flexibility might be offered along Pine Street (Highway 25). However, they have recommended that the Broadway Street frontage be maintained. Particularly at the prime intersection of the downtown area, a suburban style development would be contrary to foundation on which the Plan is built, and on which the City has spent considerable amounts of funds to help achieve. Although the applicants argue that their tenant will accept no other design due to economic requirements of their business, several other development projects have been completed or are proposed throughout the downtown area that reflect the objectives of the Plan. Among these are the Town Centre project, Landmark Square, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under consideration. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 In addition, the City has a significant area zoned for the style of project proposed by the developers. The B-3 and B-4 zoned areas south of Interstate 94 permit this type of commercial site planning, and various projects of this type are under way in those areas. The introduction of this type of site development in the core of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's planning process, nor with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout the downtown area. . The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request at this time. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential merit, a pUblic hearing should be called for formal consideration of the request at the December meeting. B. Alternative Actions. Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting parking lots along Pine and Broadway. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that this corner is an inappropriate location for traditional downtown development patterns due to high traffic levels. . 2. Motion to deny the request for an amendment, based on a finding that the Comprehensive Plan direction for this site is important due to the significance of the location as the prime intersection in the Monticello downtown commercial district. C. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that no amendment be considered at this time. If any flexibility is considered, Pine Street frontage may be appropriate, however, the Broadway Street frontage is of primary importance to the integrity of the Plan. The applicants suggest that the Theatre corner across Pine Street from this site is an example of parking lots along the primary streets. However, this parking lot pre-dated the Plan, and has been one of the examples cited as being a layout to avoid, rather than follow. Although the applicants may have found a tenant who is interested in the site, the restrictions placed on the development of the property by that tenant are completely inconsistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing development pattern, and other new projects in the downtown area that . reflect the direction of the City's planning goals. Other sites in the community Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 . would be appropriate for the proposed use, but the prime corner would be the least appropriate location. D. Supportinq Data 1. Site Plan . . . . . ~nmr~l'" r fl"'.. /.. "-~-m ! \ , ,I .if1" ''f"T . f.l..~, i i f i! 1 . i ' ~ ~ j " I " : tAt ~ . ' , \ \ ' " 1f .' ; tit li ._i 1 \ . t ! .L i 1 ! I ~i.t~~r'Zl~ ~'~'N'"' ~ ' ~ . /lJ Ul, t lllU llnb i · 'r~!Il~Llli( 1. \ l~":ll..!I.J~~ , I) .l>-",wr~- ~ i ? i _ ~ I: _~ I I --"'*l -- ..:' '.' . ~ '.' 1 .f/1't.{c..""j, f . f -." t ...; . ~I ~ , :;r.:~ ~ :j " ---J\ i 3" ~ : 31, . -4 \ . j i 1 \ r f' l _ ~ ; ~-'''i' - <r-?-' I' _ , ' . _,,' I~ ~..~po .. AJJy '~~ I ---. --...... , , , I t~\~ et.4ck52~' ~~,~ llr~ -, , l. ViJ '\, ~ - .t'l J:1 1 ~. -,,' ...- 'f"'.,. .. '6 "- . . . Minutes Regular Meeting - Design Advisory Team Tuesday, November 18,2003 Monticello City Hall - Academy Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Hoglund, Pam Campbell. Dennis Sullivan. Rnberta Gerads. Cindy Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Wojchouski OTHERS PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak. of City Staff Dan Olson of State Farm {nsuwnce. Ray Lopez of ReMax 1. Call to Order Ron Hoglund called the meeting to order at 4;30 PM 2. Approval of minutes Motion to approve the Minutes from November 3 (by Susie Wojchouski) was made by Cindy Anderson and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion approved 3. Consideration of adding items Ray Lopez of ReMax Reality JerfO'Neill with a comment on Well Fargo parking expansion Dennis Sullivan tel'"ffi expires. "viII not continue 4. State Farm Insurance Expansion (Dan Olson) Dan Olson plans to expand the current building using brick to match, and roofing to match the current materials and color. The gables will have a maintenance free product that will look like the current shakes. The business entrance will be changed to the Walnut street side. Motion to accept the building plan as presented using the above materials was made by Roberta Gerads and seconded by Pam Campbell. Motion approved. 5. LandMark Square Review There was not a discussion of any specific plans other than to show a picture of the concept based on a development in Atlanta, and the site diagram. ;f 6. Block 52 Review The picture of the set back proposal for the Broadway block was shown but nothing has changed. Oat voted last time to request zero setback on the Broadway side. and would approve the parking setback on the Pine Street side matching the Theatre parking. There '.vas no motions made to change anything. 7. Ray Lopez ReMax Real Estate Office Ray has purchased the I\.E. Michael's Decorating Center building on East Bruadv,;ay and presented concept plans to renovate the building into an office lor his n::al-estate business. The Broadway to parking area access will be closed. and a handicap access ramp will be constructed li)r access to the office from the rear. The building front will have a cast stone material added over the lower portion. Dat recommended keeping the current wood siding instead of replacing it "',lith vinyl. The sign covering the entire width of the building was discussed. Individual internally illuminated is preferred and the square ReMax logo sign is <G acceptable. Due to the cost of the letters, Ray is seeking a lower cost altemative such as externally lit individual letters via gooseneck or a lower tube lamp. Motion to approve the current wood siding, with stone on the lower portion. the siue access dosed off, and a sign of individuulletters externally illuminated. plus . a ReMax logo sign was made by Cindy Anderson and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion approwu 2 8. Wells Fargo Parking Lot Expansion Jeff O'Neill explained the parking lot Vs Walnut Street building situation that was part of the library to bank.building exchange. The city staff wanted another business building added to Walnut to continue the look of Town Square for another block. This requirement language became a showstopper in the library exchange so it was removed. NO\.y Wdls Fargo is planning a parking area 011 Walnut along with their Drive Through expansion. This was for information only 9. Dennis Sullivan Comments A) Dennis show'ed a picture of the Crafts Direct Facade on their building recently completed in Wait Park. The outline. creating a look of individual stores \vith a variety of heights is \vell done and worth a second look. The scalloped roof edge was made in St. Cloud by Miller Roofing. B) Dennis also announced that he \-vollld be stepping down from DA T \vhen his term expires in December. 10. Motion to Adjourn Pam Campbell made a motion to adjourn. seconded by Cindy Anderson. Motion Passed. Next meeting is scheduled for December 2nd, 2003. . Submitted by: Dennis .J. Sullivan . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03 9. Public HearinQ: Consideration of a reQuest to amend the Comprehensive Plan to permit Wells Farao Bank to construct a parkinQ lot alona Walnut Street in the ceo. Applicant: Wells Farao Bank. (NAC) A. Reference and Backqround. Wells Fargo Bank has requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to permit the construction of a parking lot along Walnut Street. The applicants have received Conditional Use Permit approval to proceed with this plan. As a part of that discussion, it was noted that an amendment would be necessary to support the CUP approval. The amendment in this location relies on the fact that the Wells Fargo facility has direct building frontage along Pine Street, but requires additional parking on the site to facilitate its expansion. As a result, the applicant argues that it is not possible to construct both an expansion of the bank and a separate commercial building along Walnut Street. B. Alternative Actions. Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for the construction of a parking lot along Walnut Street adjacent to 4th Street for Wells Fargo Bank. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that this design is the most appropriate site plan for the site, given the need to expand the building and the location of the site. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the commercial use along Walnut Street is a integral component of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the amendment, based upon previous action of the Planning Commission and City Council. D. Supportinq Data See agenda item from November Planning Commission meeting.