Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/06 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting February 14, 2006 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Election of Officers MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to nominate Dirk Rotty as Chair. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to nominate Ben Barker as Vice-Chair. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Minutes a) December 13, 2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the December 13, 200S Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Larson. Abstain: Fitzloff, Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. b) January 10, 2006 MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the January 10, 2006 Minutes. Voting for: Larson, Johnson. Abstain: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff. MOTION CARRIED. c) January 24, 2006 MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the January 24,2006 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Fitzloff. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings a) Sunrise Ponds Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Applicant: Bridgeland Development b) Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat Applicant: Bridgeland Development Bridgeland is proposing 110 single family villa units on 17.09 acres. The property is currently not in the City, however the Council did approve a joint resolution on February 6, 2006. Empire Township considered the joint resolution on January 24,2006 and approved it in concept with some stipulations. One is being reviewed by the township's attorney and the other is clarification on ownership and maintenance issues for Cambodia Avenue. This area is surrounded by Bristol Square to the south, the Regan property, the Devney and Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 2 Winkler property to the east, Cambodia Avenue runs along the east and 21 oth . Street will be extended along the western side. The property is also not in the MUSA phasing plan at this time. There is a MUSA Review Committee meeting scheduled for February 16,2006 where this property will be discussed. The developer is requesting a low-medium density residential designation. Staff is prepared to go ahead with the comp plan amendment and rezone contingent upon the annexation process being completed as well as PUD requirements being finalized. Upon annexation the property will be zoned A-I and the developer is asking for a pUD with an R-2, low-medium density residential zoning. The PUD is necessary as they are varying from the R-2 zoning requirements. The developer proposes 36 ft. and 46 ft. wide lots and the lot areas are reduced. Staff is recommending the comp plan amendment and rezone be contingent on the annexation of the property as well as completion of a PUD Agreement and design standards. Staff is currently reviewing the pUD Agreement and design standards. The units will be detached townhomes. Lot widths are 36 ft. and 46 ft., lot areas are from 3,240 sq. ft. to 10,478 sq. ft. Setbacks will be 20 ft. in the front, 6 ft. on the sides and rear. As the PUD process is not completed, staff is recommending the plat be continued. The extension of2l0th Street is critical for development on the east side. This is the first stage of that connection. The remaining connection needed would be the bus garage property to the west. The developer will be expected to participate in the cost of acquiring and improving 21 Oth Street as they will benefit from that. Staff is requiring Cambodia Avenue be improved with this development. The majority of Cambodia is outside this property. There have been discussions with Empire Township as to who is the owner ofthe property. . Staffhas discovered that Empire Township is the owner. Issues such as future maintenance of the road and whether it should be annexed need to be resolved. Another portion of Cambodia that affects this development is on the Krall property. The developer will have to purchase this area and then dedicate it to the City or provide the City with a permanent easement for road, trail, drainage and utility purposes. Park and Rec recommends a small tot lot be built. It will be a private park as there will be a homeowner's association. Staff recommended: - Approval of the 2020 Comp Plan Amendment designating the property from non-designated to low-medium density contingent upon the annexation ofthe property and approval of the pUD Agreement. - Approval of the rezoning ofthe property from A-I to PUD with an underlying R-2 low-medium density residential zoning contingent upon the annexation ofthe property and the approval of the PUD Agreement. - Continue the Sunrise Ponds preliminary plat to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Peter Knable, Terra Engineering representing Bridge1and Development, stated the builder, MW Johnson is also present. He stated the concept is detached single-family units. There are 110 units proposed and 41 of those units are in the center of the project and will have rear garages and alleys. The balance of the 60 units will have garages in the front and served by private drives. They are . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 3 . working on updating the PUD Agreement and have revised the preliminary plat drawings. He believed the majority of the engineering issues have been resolved. They proposed to extend Cambodia to the entrance of their first private drive. Based on staff s comments, staff is recommending it be extended to the north property line. The developer proposes to build the road to the north property. 210th Street would be built to the western property line. The limit of that extension has not changed from the original concept plan. There is a trail around the development and either sidewalks or trails proposed on the public streets. There are trail connections in the northeast and southwest corners to connect to the public trails. They will work with staff on the design of the tot lot. . Mr. Richard Sayers, 21020 Cambodia Avenue, stated he lives east of the property at the corner of210th Street and Cambodia Avenue. He was shocked about the involvement and the communication given to him on this project. He felt the project is quite a bit further than just a land sale and felt the project is much further along by the time people are notified. The property is not in the City at this time. When the Devney and Adelmann properties came into the City and were proposed for development, he understood the limits of the Prairie Waterway was at the maximum capacity and that high density building could not be handled by the waterways. He would like to be updated on the feasibility studies as to whether this can be handled. He is worried about the water table. They have private wells. There are a lot of things he feels he has not been informed about. For the first time he sees the developer is going through his neighbor's property to extend Cambodia Avenue. This is all new to him. He does not like to be kept in the dark, and wants to be kept informed as to what is going on. Mr. Sayers stated he was notified of this public hearing last Monday. Chair Rotty stated the owner has applied for annexation and they are waiting for the township's approval. Community Development Director Carroll replied the EFP AC has discussed this property over the last few months. Once there was a concept plan, staff talked with the EFPAC members and provided them with a draft joint resolution. This was discussed at the last town board meeting and they indicated they were not opposed in concept to the annexation of this property as they do not have the ability to provide it with municipal services. The township had some questions regarding Cambodia Avenue, staff has researched this issue and it is on the town board agenda for further discussion. Chair Rotty then asked about the Prairie Waterway. Staffhas asked engineering ifthe storm water could be handled onsite or through the Prairie Waterway. Engineering has indicated because of the small size of the parcel, it could be. Once the Winkler and the Devney properties are developed, some of that storm water could go to the Prairie Waterway, but not all of it. That is why development of these properties has been delayed, so the City could look at other options to deal with the storm water. . Commissioner Barker asked about the status of the feasibility report for the sewer capacity. Staff stated there is an existing system plan for the City's sewer system. This property is included within that plan. It can be handled by the current sewer Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2006 Page 4 and water systems. Commissioner Larson asked how this affects future capacity to the south. Staffreplied the impact would be minimal. There is a wide range of properties to the east and the south that will need capacity. The combined total probably exceeds the available capacity of the City. There is a plan for the Met Council to install an interceptor. Another option is a force main to the east of these properties. Commissioner Barker asked how it is determined how much water can go into the Prairie Waterway and which developments are allowed to use it. Staff replied that will be part of the current storm water analysis. A plan should go to the Council in March. They looked at properties to the east of downtown where owners have expressed an interest in developing. Council will have to decide which option will work best to deal with the storm water. They are looking at more systems where the storm water is contained onsite through large ponds. Commissioner Barker wondered ifthis was pre-mature as there are reports coming in March, and the annexation needs to be approved by the township. He was concerned with the timing of some of the contingencies. rfthey wait one month, they would have the answers. Commissioner Johnson stated we are already continuing the preliminary plat and asked if it would create problems to also delay the comp plan amendment and zoning. Staff felt the developer was looking for some indication that they are on the right track. The comp plan amendment still has to go to the City Council and the Met Council and a lot of work is involved in that. Ifthe Commission was in favor ofthis type of housing density, there is no point in holding up that component. It could go on to the Council to determine ifthey are in favor of this plan. There are three issues that need to be worked out before it comes back to the Planning Commission - the annexation issue, the details for the PUD, and engineering issues for the plat. Mr. Rich Hocking, Attorney for Bridgeland Development, stated this would throw off their timing as they have been working on this for seven months. He appreciated the issues the Commission needs to deal with. This parcel is within the area that could be dealt with currently. They need to move along in order to meet deadlines. . . Commissioner Larson felt it was too early for this piece of property to come in or to be developed by the City. The sewer system study which he thought would be done in late December, early January is not completed. They had discussed not developing anything until they see the study so they could analyze where development should or should not be. The MUSA Committee meets on February 16, 2006 and there is no guarantee this property will get MUSA. Why change the comp plan and zoning before the MUSA Committee meets? This property should not be developed until 21 oth Street goes from hwy 3 up to it. Right now we are putting in these 110 units without the proper roads. He thinks it is too early and feels there is no rush. It will not hurt the City by waiting. He is also concerned with the sewer capacity to the south. Either way there will be a school on the . Angus property, whether it is an elementary or a high school. He does not want to Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 5 . . . use up all the sewer capacity here and then find out the high school will go on the Angus property. Soon we will have no sewer capacity to support the development around the school. He does not want to have a high school or an elementary school sitting out there all by itself without the proper development around it in order to lead the sewer and water up to that property. A lot will happen in the next few months to decide whether this should or should not go in. He feels it is too early and they do not need to decide on this now. He wanted to continue all three items. Commissioner Barker reviewed the process for zone A properties. Based on this he would like to wait a month to stay consistent with the process that was just put in place. City Planner Smick noted the steps to approve the MUSA and adopt the Comp Plan could be reversed in some cases. Community Development Director Carroll explained those issues go hand in hand. Those steps could easily be reversed. Commissioners Johnson and Barker agreed to move forward with the process. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the Council on the Comp Plan amendment for low-medium density with the contingencies and to rezone the property from A-I to a PUD. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson. Voting against: Larson. He felt the Commission was doing a disservice without studying the sewer capacity plan that is supposed to be done and without getting the transportation in line like it should be before a development like this is put in. Abstain: Fitzloff. MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty asked staff to not take this to the Council until the contingencies were completed. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Regan Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Applicant: Patrick Regan Mr. Regan has submitted an application to amend the Comp Plan from undesignated to industrial and rezone the property located at 21 OS4 Chippendale Court from A-I to I-I. The property is surrounded by Glenview Townhomes, Bristol Square and hwy 3. The property was originally plated as part of the Empire Liberty addition in 2003. The property was annexed effective June 9, 200S. Upon annexation a property is given the A-I designation. The property was used by Marschall Bus Lines. It is not part of the MUSA phasing plan. The MUSA Committee will meet on February 16,2006 and will discuss this property. The majority of the properties surrounding this parcel are zoned B-1. This includes the American Legion, the car wash, the Dairy Queen, and Dakota Lumber. The only residential property located along Chippendale Court is also zoned B-1. Mr. Regan has entered into a 10-year lease agreement with Mobile Mini Storage. They supply mobile storage units for offices and trailers. Staff has determined that this use falls under the storage yard category and feels a Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2006 Page 6 commercial comp plan designation and a B-1 zoning would be more appropriate due to the location towards hwy 3 and the surrounding properties are B-1 and there is the Hometown Addition to the north. Staff recommended: . - Deny the request for a comp plan designation for industrial and rezone to I-I. - Recommend a comp plan designation of commercial and rezone the property from A-I to B-1. Mr. Patrick Regan offered another suggestion. He received staff's recommendations that they were in agreement with a comp plan designation of commercial and a zoning designation of B-1, and that would cause another meeting on a CUP. His letter explained why he annexed into the City in the first place and what his understandings and assumptions have been all along and what his request was in the beginning is that they could operate their property as it was operated as a bus terminal with outside storage of vehicles and equipment of an industrial nature. That is what it is and what it has been. He thought that is what it would most likely continue to be. That was the risk he took when he moved over to the new industrial park. He was to find another user who would be comparable to the bus operation and he has been able to do that with Mobile Mini. He would like to keep operating the property like it has been and like it was when it was in Empire Township. He sees this as a formality because the annexation is already approved. He would like to get City sewer and water hooked up to their buildings. While it was suggested they operate under a CUP, after further review of the zoning codes he would rather keep moving with this process and get the . grading done and water and sewer installed and get his tenant to be able to use the entire property like the lease anticipates and like they have said all along they wanted to do. Ifthere is a comp plan designation of commercial, that is fine. If the zoning were to be a B-3 they would be able to avoid the need for a CUP, because in the B-3 supply yards are allowed without a CUP and without the need for another public hearing. He was prepared to meet the standards required for an I-I zone. Mr. Regan asked the Commission to consider applying the commercial designation to the comp plan and rather than a B-1, change it to a B-3 zone. He stated we cannot anticipate what will happen with the residential neighbors between his property and hwy 3 who remain in Empire. He would not talk about the 21 oth Street issue, as that is totally separate. Chair Rotty stated B-1 is highway business and this is along hwy 3. Staff noted if we look at B-3 for this type of use they need to decide if it is necessary to look at the other types of uses that could end up there if the Commission recommends that zoning. Staff felt Mr. Regan would acknowledge that he is proposing that mostly to avoid the necessity of coming back to the Commission to talk about a CUP and the delay he may think is related to that. The sewer connections he wants to make will require getting a positive recommendation from the MUSA Committee, those recommendations are brought to the Planning Commission, it then goes to the Council for them to approve MUSA, and then it goes to the Met . Council for review. There are enough steps in the process to take this Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 7 . significantly beyond the next Planning Commission meeting. If the reason to consider B-3 is to avoid that timeframe, that won't be accomplished. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Regan ifthey were to look at B-1 and the Commission discuss the conditional use and whether they would favor it for mini storage, would that be satisfactory to him. Mr. Regan replied he would listen to the discussion, but he did think they would be able to move the process along and not have to come back to the Commission at all. Mr. Regan stated regarding MUSA, for him to stand here with his property having been accepted for annexation and for there to be any indication he might not be recommended for MUSA, does he go back to Empire and ask them if he can come back? Chair Rotty stated procedurally some ofthese things have to happen and explained what the MUSA Committee is and the process. Mr. Regan asked that after having reviewed the zoning designations, the staff and Planning Commission consider the B-3 heavy business district being the zone as opposed to a B-1 with a CUP. He is fine with the comp plan amendment. Commissioner Larson stated the Commission could change it to a B- 1 and after that discussion they could discuss the Conditional Use in the same meeting. Right now, he would have concerns with the B-3 because ofthe residential. He would have to study the B-3 uses before he would consider it. Chair Rotty suggested they go ahead with the comp plan amendment for B-1 and then they can look at the CUP at the March 14,2006 meeting. If Mr. Regan wants B-3 he would be looking at an April approval. Chair Rotty stated he would not have a problem with having a CUP for a mini-storage in the B-1. . Mr. Andy Adelmann, 21020 Chippendale Court, stated he would like B-1 for that area. Mr. Paul Baumgard, 21056 Chippendale Court, asked how the zoning would affect his property and any future plans. Chair Rotty explained Mr. Regan is looking at rezoning the property for a mini-storage. Mr. Baumgard just wanted to stay informed as to what is going on in the area. Community Development Director Carroll stated the City would be receptive for surrounding properties to be annexed, but staff is not actively pursuing them. If any of them want to be annexed and still remain living in their homes, the City will let them do so. But at some point as the traffic escalates on hwy3 it will make more sense over time for those properties to transition from residential to a commercial use. Chair Rotty asked for the Commissioners comments on the comp plan amendment to B-1 and also an indication on the possible CUP for the mini- storage. All the Commissioners would be in favor of the B-1 with a CUP. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to deny the CUP request for industrial I-I and recommend a comp plan amendment for commercial, B-l. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 8 d) Variance to the Minimum Lot Area in the B-2 Zoning District for the Properties at 209 Oak Street Applicant: Hosmer Brown Mr. Brown has submitted a variance request to the minimum lot area in a B-2 district. The code requires 5,000 sq. ft. and Mr. Brown is asking for a 3,200 sq. ft. variance. The EDA is interested in purchasing the Riste building and it has to be surveyed. The Riste building exists on lots 3 and 4. A lot split is being proposed so the EDA can combine these two parcels into one. There is an L-shaped lot on one ofthe parcels and staff proposes to split that so the Larson building will take over the last piece. There are certain requirements that need to be met for a variance. Because of the physical surroundings, shape and configuration there is an undue hardship. The parcels on block 22 and block 23, do not meet the 5,000 sq. ft requirement. Therefore, strict adherence to the regulations ofthe B-2 zoning district would cause undue hardship. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel. Because of the intended parcel combinations for the Riste and the Larson parcels the total parcel area of these non-conforming parcels will decrease the non-conformity. The Commission supported the granting ofthe variance. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzloffto approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Text Amendment to Section 8-1-5(A) of the City Code to Include Reference 10-6-10 (F) and (G) This is a text amendment to do a cross reference between the landscape code and the code regarding boulevard tree maintenance and allowable uses. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fitzloff, second by Larson for a favorable recommendation of the text amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River Crossings Phase I Project Applicant: Pedersen Ventures MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to accept the withdrawal request and close the public hearing for the variance of off-street parking in the Vermillion River Crossing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Discussion a) Vermillion River Crossings 2nd Addition Final Plat Applicant: Pedersen Ventures This was to review Outlots D and G on the final plat. Proposed businesses include the Northfield Clinic, McDonald's and the Federal Credit Union. Outlot G does not encompass all of the area to the building setback line. In the downtown area, all of the right-of-way goes to the line ofthe buildings. Outlot G . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 9 . is only shown at the rear comer where the diagonal parking is located, and does not encompass the sidewalk that goes to the building line. Outlot G is proposed to be dedicated to the City as right-of-way. An advantage ofthis is the City will maintain the median strip and the sidewalks north of Knutson Drive. However the sidewalks in the amenity area in the triangle area will flip on the other side. It is staffs concern that the City will not control those sidewalks yet. The City would have to go through an easement process to obtain the sidewalks. Commissioner Larson felt it would be better to bring in the sidewalks on both sides and in the amenity now. Community Development Director Carroll noted Pedersen Ventures is willing to grant the easement at anytime. The developer preferred to address this at a later time. Staffwas comfortable with handling this either way. The recommendation for approval of the final plat is: I. If sidewalks, trails, or corner public amenity areas are constructed outside of any road right-of-way such as on private property or within a drainage and utility easement, the developer provide a permanent easement for the sidewalk, trail, or comer public amenity area and constructing them to City standards or specific requirements. 2. Approval ofthe plat is contingent upon satisfaction of any engineering requirements. . Mr. Dick Allendorf, Pedersen Ventures, stated they have no problem providing an easement to the City. When the multi-tenant building comes in they have no problem at that time. The problem they have right now is that ifthe developer gives that to the City as part of Outlot G, they have no flexibility on where the front of the building will be. If something changes with the multi-tenant building, they have no flexibility. If it is done as an easement or a deed, when the site and building plan comes in the developer can assure they will give the City all of the sidewalk right up to the front of the building. Losing the flexibility is their objection to doing it now. They have no problem granting the easement, it is just a matter of timing. Commissioner Larson asked if they lose their flexibility with setbacks. Staff noted there is 15 ft. for a sidewalk. Mr. Allendorf stated they do not expect it to be anything other than 15 ft., but ifit is 15.5 ft for some reason and they have made the decision now before the site and building plan comes in that takes away their flexibility. Mr. Allendorf agreed with the staff report and thanked staff for all the time they have taken with this. Commissioner Larson asked if the footprint of the building would change. Mr. Allendorf replied it could. Right now it is 66 ft. deep. If a tenant comes in they may want something other than 66 ft. He assured the Commission they will get the easement to the sidewalk if they allow the developer this flexibility. . Commissioner Barker asked if staff was comfortable there will not be any issues in the future, or is it easier to do this as an outlot. Attorney J amnik stated the possibility of problems in the future are not dependent on the Commission's decision tonight. There may be challenges and difficulties no matter which way we go. If the Commission takes an easement tonight, it might have to be revised Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 10 in the future. Ifwe wait until in the future, we may have problems negotiating and have a difference of opinion. There is no right or wrong. The City is comfortable with waiting to see what the building proposal is and evaluate it at that time. Commissioner Barker stated there have been a couple of times where there have been verbal agreements and then things change. He wanted to make sure that will not happen again. He did not want issues down the road if it could easily be done now with the outlot. Chair Rotty did not feel this would be an issue now or in the future. He felt we will get what we need. Community Development Director Carroll stated flexibility means the sidewalk may be narrower or wider. There is a landscape plan on the agenda based on certain dimensions. If the landscape plan is approved and later the width of the sidewalk changes, that may involve coming back to the Commission and the Council to modify the landscaping plan. That will change other details such as scoring patterns, where the pavers go, etc. He wanted to make sure everyone understood if that flexibility results in a proposal to change the landscaping plan, that will have to be re-examined. The engineers have said that even ifthere is no plan to build the multi-tenant building in the near future, if there are utility related things that happen in the spring and that involves putting in underground conduit for the street lights that will go on the sidewalk, or underground piping for irrigation systems to water hanging baskets, if that work is going to be done outside of the platted right-of-way that is the point where the easement will be needed. If the City requires the easement be given at that time at a specified width in order to get that work done or to approve that work being done, from that point forward, that flexibility may not exist anymore. Chair Rotty asked if staff was saying it would be better to include it now with the outlot. Community Development Director Carroll replied that would be cleaner. Staff is trying to develop a better understanding of the flexibility issue. It seems the landscaping plan is based on a sidewalk of a certain width with certain things in the sidewalk. It is either going to be built that way, or it's not. Ifthere is a chance it will not be, then maybe we should not be approving the landscaping plan. Staffs preference would be to approve the landscaping plan because there has been a lot of work done on it. The downside is the developer would have to re-do the plat before the Council meeting. The Commission could recommend it be revised in that way and be presented to the Council with the change. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to approve the final plat contingent on the outlot including the sidewalk and amenities and also the second contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Sketch Plan Review - Northfield Clinic The applicant is proposing to construct a 14,695 sq. ft. medical clinic with the possibility of a second phase consisting of 2,327 sq. ft. of additional space. The building is 148 ft. in length and 109 ft. in width. The building meets all the setback requirements. The lot coverage upon completion of the first phase will be 15% and 17.3% with the completion of the second phase. There is a drainage and . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 11 . . . utility easement that encompasses the northerly 50 ft. of the property. The ditch is part of the mitigation requirements of the DNR and MPCA for the Vermillion River. Therefore no construction can occur in this area and none is shown. The clinic is listed as a permitted use within the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district. The clinic is proposing a clinic that will consist of 24 exam rooms within the first phase and a total of36 upon complete build out. There will be 12 doctors and 21 support employees. There are two accesses shown, both off of Knutson Drive which is a private drive. CSAH 50 is to the north, Dushane Parkway is the main north-south roadway into Vermillion River Crossings, and Knutson Drive is to the south and east. One access is a right-in, right-out only. There will be two separate parking lots, one for staff employees. There will be 82 parking spaces. The requirement is 81 parking spaces. The traffic engineer is satisfied with the transportation issues. There will be a sidewalk along the south side of the site. As it is a private street, the developer would have to maintain it. As far as building elevations, the clinic is waiting on the final design standards for the overall development to be approved. Landscaping will be submitted with the site plan documents. Commissioner Johnson liked the plan. Commission Larson felt everything was in order and looked great. Commissioner Fitzloffhad no comments. Commissioner Barker also agreed it looked nice. Chair Rotty stated it will be a nice addition. c) Sketch Plan Review - McDonald's They are proposing a 4,800 sq. ft. fast-food restaurant with a drive-through. Seating capacity will be 90 people. The building is proposed to be 96 ft. in length by 50 ft. in width and meets all the setback requirements. A class two restaurant is a conditional use in the Spruce Street Commercial district so a CUP will be required. The lot coverage will be 8.8%. This parcel also includes the drainage ditch and they are not encroaching upon this. The drive-through will have two lanes with two order boards. There will be two accesses, the one on the east will be a full access and the other will be a right-in, right-out only because it is too close to Dushane Parkway. The applicant has requested that for delivery purposes their trucks be allowed to enter this access. The traffic engineer suggested the angle be increased slightly. The traffic engineer had some concerns with how the parking lot by the east access juts out and was concerned with the movement of traffic lining up to get to that access. There will also be a sidewalk in the boulevard and a sidewalk from their building to the sidewalk along Dushane Parkway. The applicant is proposing 50 off-street parking spaces. The code requires 45 spaces. The applicant is also waiting for the design standards to finalize the design, but submitted a preliminary drawing of what the building would look like. They are proposing one monument sign at 11 ft. 8 in. in height. The maximum is 10ft., so the sign will have to be revised. The landscaping plan will be submitted with the site plan. Commissioner Larson liked the sketch plan and agreed with the CUP. Commissioner Fitzloff asked ifthere was anything dividing the drive-through. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 12 Staff noted there will be a painted line. He agreed with the CUP. Commissioner . Barker agreed with the plan and the CUP. Commissioner Johnson asked ifit was going to have a play area. A play area is not included in the plan. Chair Rotty agreed with looking at how the parking lot juts out. He asked if this was consistent in size with other McDonald's, which it is. He agreed with the CUP and agreed with the traffic engineer's comments. d) Design Theme/Landscaping Plan There are two major items. One is to determine the design narrative to have unifying elements in the buildings in the outlots and along the north-south road. The narrative was prepared in October 2005 and several things have changed. The developer will need to update the design theme narrative to update what will actually happen. The City has envisioned a menu style board that will give the outlot developers a choice for the lighting, the stone, etc. With the update to the narrative staff hoped to get more information and details in colors, how things are laid on the stone, etc. The narrative has four different questions. 1. The building along CSAH 50 that will not face Dushane Parkway, is it acceptable to have 20% minimum for the specified exterior building materials? 2. With regard to the design features, is two an acceptable minimum number of features for the main street? 3. Could the building material information be presented or summarized in a format that would be more user friendly? 4. Are there any different or additional themes the Commission would like . the developer and staff to consider? The Commission felt the 20% minimum for building materials seemed low. Staff did not specify what the design theme needed to be. It could be colors, building materials, architectural details and the developer has put something together that reflects that. This is working reasonably well, but is coming out in a way different than what staffhad intended. The original plan was for the developer to put up some buildings of their own first, such as the multi-tenant buildings, and design them in a way to reflect what is currently shown. Once those buildings were established, pick up those themes and carry them forward with the other privately owned buildings on the lots they sold. Now it is happening backwards. We have some of the lots that are being sold and the plans for those buildings coming forward first. The developer has told Northfield Clinic and McDonalds about the design theme issue. They are prepared to incorporate some of the elements into their buildings. Staff has not specified a certain percentage for building materials, but felt 20% may be a little low. Chair Rotty suggested working with the developers on that. Commissioner Barker noted there is separation between the clinic and McDonald's, but the percentage could be different with a multi-tenant building. Staff agreed the developer will have more flexibility with the multi-tenant building than the private buildings. Staff hoped the buildings would replicate the buildings in the downtown. Staff recommended the details be worked out and placed on a future Planning Commission agenda, . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 13 . but asked if the Commission would be prepared to give staff the discretion to recommend to the Council a revision of this that meets the Commission's general guidelines. Chair Rotty agreed with staff working with the developer and taking it to Council. Commissioner Barker noted the developer is allowed to choose two selections for building amenities. He recalled in the Spruce Street corridor area, they spelled out the elevations in terms of the facades of the different buildings where they have to have some fluctuation. Staff agreed it would be nice to have them include that in the design narrative. Commissioner Barker would like to have that included in the narrative if it is not coming back to the Commission. Regarding the landscape and amenity plans, before permits can be issued the landscape plan needs to be approved. Dushane Parkway is the north-south roadway and Knutson Drive runs east and west. Pederson Way is on the west side. . Mr. Allendorf stated they will improve the specifications and materials so they are readable and will add a comment on the heights and recesses. However, there are two different criteria they wish to meet. One is with the outlot buildings and the 20%. What they tried to do was to mandate that those buildings are reminiscent of the rest of the development. They felt the 20% was a good number. That is different, however, than the multi-tenant building. The developer thought the Commission's intent on the multi-tenant building was to get variety rather than uniformity. That is why the 20% is not applied to the multi-tenant building. The multi-tenant building contains a variety of items which give the flavor of different buildings. Chair Rotty suggested staff clarify this with the developer. Regarding the landscape plan, along Dushane Parkway, staff envisions the east and west sides being the same. The sidewalk is a grid system and very much like the downtown with the brick pavers in large areas and around the trees and benches. There is also scoring in the concrete like the downtown. There is a wavy line that emulates the river theme. It will be exposed aggregate throughout the sidewalk and will run north-south all the way to CSAH 50. At the southeast and southwest corners the river walk aggregate culminates into three concentric circles. There is also a brick herringbone pattern with the poured concrete as spokes. There will also be two curved trellis areas with benches underneath and trees. They are still working on the lettering for the Vermillion River Crossings sign. Staff also showed the elevations of the signs, lights, trees, etc. . The median strip runs north and south on Dushane. This contains a couple different heights with amenities such as trees, grasses, flowers, etc. The median is 8 ft. wide and the landscape material will be 6 ft. wide. There will be 1 ft. of working area. There are a number of boulevard trees along Dushane with a variety of different colors. As far as the electric details, there will be a receptacle mounting area in the tree grates, 4 inches above the grate for holiday lights. They are also looking at the possibility of lighting the sign and the trellises. The Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2006 Page 14 trellises will be made of cedar, 8 ft. high, with a brick base and end caps. Each landscaped area will have an irrigation system. Chair Rotty liked the landscape and amenity plan. It was well done with a lot of detail. Commissioner Fitzloff asked if there will be a water feature. Staff had discussed this, but this will be more of a display area with sculptures etc. There will also be hanging baskets and flags. Commissioner Fitzloffwas aware of a way to also have an irrigation system for the hanging baskets and will provide that information to the developer and staff. Commissioner Larson suggested changing the seed mix along the right-of-way where it says hydro-seed 250. There is a proposed trail and suggested going out 10 ft. from the trail and instead of using a 250 mix, use a 260 mix and on the outside ofthat use a 30BWF which is an urban prairie with wildflowers. On each end ofthe right-of-way there is a small retention pond on the west side of Dushane he asked if they will be wet just during rain events. Staff confirmed this but did not know for how long they would retain the water. Commissioner Larson suggested a buffer mix if they will be wet for any length of time, more than 24 hours. He also suggested the sod strips be 8 ft. instead of 7 ft. as a standard roll is 2 ft. The Commission agreed with moving this plan forward. t) Double E Development Sketch Plan This property is surrounded by Dyers Pass and Middle Creek Estates, Bongaard Trucking, Farmington Lutheran Church, the Giles property, and the Gerts property. The developer is proposing a seven-lot subdivision. This would be a cul-de-sac with seven single-family lots. There are several retaining walls, some 10ft. in height. A storm water pond is required on the property. Staff and engineering are reviewing the storm water issues. The pond is proposed to outlet underneath and across the street into the wetland area. The site is heavily wooded and all the trees will be removed. The Middle Creek Historic Cemetery is at the top ofthe hill which is a historic landmark. There is a concern about the number of trees that would be lost. The lot widths meet the requirements ofthe R-l zone. The retaining walls will have to be structurally engineered because they are over 4 ft. in height. . . Commissioner Barker had a concern with the drainage, because this is a very small site with slopes. He confirmed the retaining walls will be located on this property and no grading would have to be done on neighboring properties. The developer agreed, all the grading is within the site. He was concerned with 10ft. retaining walls. Staff noted there is the rock wall on Dyers Pass and Prairie Creek. The developer is looking at more of a structural retaining wall. Commissioner Larson thought they had to be tiered or fenced. The developer stated there would be one continuous wall on the west side. They would try to do a tiered effect on the south side. Commissioner Barker then asked about the retaining wall by the pond and noted it was 0-10 ft. The developer explained it will be gradually higher as they tried to maintain a level spot at the bottom for the pond. Commissioner Barker also noticed the different levels ofthe house pads. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Johnson liked the lot sizes, but had concerns with the west retaining wall and asked if the neighbors to the west know about this. Removing all the trees will change the appearance of their backyards. He did not like how the house was so close to the retaining wall. The developer stated the back ofthe lot would have a slope away from the home for a lookout effect from the basement. Commissioner Larson noted the Council talked about a tree plan at the last meeting. Staff stated they are preparing a tree preservation ordinance on recommendation of the Council. It will be coming to the Planning Commission on March 14 and then to the Council. Staff will request the developer do a tree inventory and advise staff where the larger trees are on the sight. Staffwill want to save a certain size, which needs to be determined. Staffwill also need to talk with the City Attorney about the timing of the ordinance and proposed developments. Chair Rotty stated this currently meets the lot widths and size. As far as preserving the trees, we do not have that ordinance at this time. He did not have any negative comments at this time. The traffic engineer is also looking at transportation issues as far as lining up intersections. e) Appoint Planning Commission Representative to Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to appoint Commissioner Larson to the Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /;-#'/'-~ 7.4/'7 ~ L<;;/,t-.C/CL.<<L. /" r ~P-G/' /7 C/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved