Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/14/06 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 14,2006 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff, Larson Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) February 14, 2006 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the February 14, 2006 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat (Contd.) Applicant: Bridgeland Development At the last meeting there were some outstanding issues with the Preliminary Plat. The property was annexed into the City on March 9, 2006. The Commission recommended rezoning the property from A-I to R-2 PUD and amended the Comp Plan from non-designated to low/medium density. The property is 17.09 acres. The applicant proposes 110 single-family residential detached townhomes. The density would be 6.44 units/acre. The lots will be from 36 ft. to 46 ft. wide. The setbacks are 20 ft. in the front, 6 ft. on the sides and 10ft. in the rear. The development is adjacent to Cambodia Avenue. Bristol Square is to the south and TH3 is to the west. The property also shows the extension of 21 Oth Street from Cambodia to the western boundary of the property. 210th Street is proposed to be constructed as a 70 ft. right-of-way with a 33 ft. wide street from curb to curb. There will be no parking allowed on 21 Oth Street. There are a number of private roads within the development. There is an alley in the back of some of the homes. Staff received a memo from the Traffic Engineer regarding 21 Oth Street and the need for it to be extended to TH3 with this development. He indicated the Perkins property could develop without the 21 Oth Street connection with the caveat that progress is being made to provide the connection to TH3. A portion of Cambodia is outside of the platted area, however the developer will be required to improve that with this development. There is a small area outside the platted property that is on the Krall property. The developer has obtained an easement for that portion of Cambodia. There is an above ground electric line along the north side of 21 Oth Street. There are three properties that access onto a shared driveway. The electric company will allow roads, utilities, etc. to go within the easement and they are considering the shared driveway to be a road. A Homeowner's Association will be responsible for maintaining the private roads. The PUD Agreement lists various modifications to the R-2 code as follows: 1. The R-2 code requires 6,000 sq. ft. for a minimum lot area. The developer is requesting 3,300 sq. ft. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 2 2. The developer is also requesting a minimum lot width reduction. The R-2 code requires 60 ft. minimum lot width and the developer is going as low as 36 ft. wide. 3. The rear yard setback is typically 6 ft. for R-2, the developer is showing 10 ft. 4. The R-2 allows 30% lot coverage, the developer is requesting 45% lot coverage. 5. The maximum detached garage size in an R-2 is up to 1,000 sq. ft. in size, the developer is proposing a maximum of 650 sq. ft. 6. The detached rear garage setback in an R-2 requires 10ft. from an alley, the developer is proposing 12 ft. from the alley. . MW Johnson will be the builder for this development. Regarding the design standards, the Commission would like to see some architectural elements that make the homes unique. The builder will supply a minimum of 10 base plans and each plan will have two different distinct elevations. Parks and Recreation Director Distad submitted recommendations regarding parks and trails. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the plat with certain conditions. 1. The trail and sidewalk locations should remain the same as shown on the plat. 2. A small tot lot should be built adjacent to the gazebo. . 3. The developer should be given partial credit towards their overall park dedication requirement for the private park they are dedicating. 4. The remaining park land dedication that is required for the development should be taken as cash in lieu of land. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat contingent on the following: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering and planning comments. 2. Obtain permission from the electric company to have a shared driveway within the electric easements on Lots 1,2,3 of Block 1. Mr. Richard Hocking, Attorney for Bridgeland Development Company, stated they have been to 19 meetings regarding this project and he appreciated the assistance from Community Development Director Carroll and City Planner Smick. He feels they have a unique product that moves forward the goals of the City with regard to affordability. He feels they have worked out all the issues. Regarding transportation, they have been working from a study done by the Traffic Engineer on September 7, 2005. This was when they were proposing 163 townhome units. This amounted to 955 daily two-way trips. Now with 110 units this would be 636 trips. In September 2005 the study indicated that future development outside of the Perkins property would require that both Cambodia and 21 Oth Street be improved. Until a connection with 21 Oth Street to TH3 is provided all the traffic will use Cambodia and 213th Street to access the . development. This was based on a greater volume of traffic than what they are proposing now. The Traffic Engineer recommended Cambodia and 21 Oth Street Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 3 . be built to collector status. The developer has agreed to do this. They do not have any frontage along these roads. Mr. Pat Regan, owner of the property to the west, was aware that screening is an item the Commission wanted to talk to him about. He wanted to show the survey at this time because their land comes to a point, and he bought a 100 ft. wide railroad bed from Mr. Perkins, it becomes confusing how screening for his property would relate to this development. His survey showed the eastern border ofthe Bridgeland Development which is 500 ft. long. This showed the relationship between the border and the land the City bought from Mr. Perkins for the Vermillion Waterway and the 100 ft. wide railroad bed that borders the Vermillion Waterway and the original property he bought from Marshall's that comes to a point. Mr. Regan owns 108 ft. of frontage. Part of the Purchase Agreement between Mr. Regan and Mr. Perkins was that Mr. Regan would be screening along the 108 ft. He has installed full sized evergreens and deciduous trees. Along the eastern border, the plat does not show screening that was required by the developer. . Commissioner Larson felt it was too early for this property to be developed. The Traffic Engineer's memo regarding developing 21 oth Street from TH3 to the western property line was received by staff today. Community Development Director Carroll stated the Traffic Engineer reviewed this again because there was some uncertainty as to what he was recommending. When the Traffic Engineer looked at the traffic issues, he was asked to look at the Devney, Winkler and Perkins properties and what roadway improvements would be necessary to serve those properties. He looked at them as a group and made recommendations as to improvements that would be needed if they all developed around the same time. His conclusion that 213th Street would not be adequate and that 2l0th Street would have to be improved to TH3 was based on looking at development of all the properties at the same time. Staff informed the Traffic Engineer that people are saying 21 oth Street needs to go to TH3 even if only the Perkins pro~erty develops. People are asking ifthe traffic could go south on Cambodia to 213t Street to TH3. The Traffic Engineer in a memo received today says that would work on a temporary basis. The capacity ofthat road is sufficient to handle the traffic generated by the Perkins property. However, staff needs to keep moving forward on getting the 210th Street connection to TH3 because it would make transportation into and out of the Perkins property easier and it will be needed eventually for the Devney and Winkler properties. There are north-south roads proposed in the future. When Biscayne is improved from Hwy 50 to Hwy 66, traffic from the Devney and Winkler properties could go to Biscayne and go north or south. Some ofthe roads are in properties that have not been annexed yet. The Traffic Engineer concluded that 21 Oth Street will be needed on a regional basis, not just for the Perkins property, but also for Devney and Winkler. The City has made a commitment to developing the Devney and Winkler properties, but this roadway connection is needed. Development of the Perkins property is a way of getting a piece of that roadway connection. . Commissioner Barker asked without 21 Oth Street, what does that do to the Devney and Winkler properties. Community Development Director Carroll agreed with Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 4 the consultant who says there is not enough traffic connections to serve Perkins, . Devney and Winkler at full build out capacity without the addition of 21 oth Street. He would not recommend allowing more than 50% development of all those properties together. A timeline has not been set as to when that connection will be made, however the Council wants it done. Commissioner Larson noted the traffic generated by this site will utilize at least temporarily Cambodia and 213th Street to TH3. Mr. Regan signed a lO-year lease with a storage company. At the last meeting Mr. Regan did not want to talk about the road, so that tells Commissioner Larson that the road is out of the question. The road being used temporarily would be for 10 years. It has been indicated to him by some staff and Councilmembers that if Mr. Regan is not willing to sell the property that they would look at taking it by force. Then the City will be building a road for the Perkins property. He does not think the City should be building roads for certain developers. He agreed with the PUD and the design standards. He wanted to stress how important it is that the proper roads are put in for this development. He thinks it is too early for this piece of property to come into the City to be developed. Commissioner Barker wanted the tot lot shown on the plat next to the gazebo. He does not like the shared driveways. If it does take 5-10 years before 2l0th Street can connect to TH3, the Traffic Engineer has said one piece can be done, but not the other. We have to look at the feasibility issue. Staffwas not sure Mr. Devney would see this as a hang up. He would see it as the creation of a roadway that is . needed for the development of his property. It is a positive thing for Mr. Devney. It may expedite things for his property. Commissioner Barker did not agree. If Devney and Winkler came through last fall, we knew 213th Street is where the traffic would have to go. Chair Rotty stated when they discuss the Devney and Winkler properties that would be considered. Commissioner Barker did not have a problem with the PUD and the design standards. Chair Rotty liked the PUD Agreement. He confirmed the maximum lot coverage includes decks, which it does. The setbacks are reasonable. Regarding the plat, this is a unique product for this community. As far as the preliminary plat, he will allow this one to go through. He wants to see different housing types throughout the community. He verified that the tot lot would be included in the plat. Chair Rotty was unsure about the shared driveways. Commissioner Barker felt they could lose a couple lots to avoid this. Staff saw this being the same as townhome driveways that come onto a short stretch of road which is in a way a driveway. Chair Rotty commented to the Council to continue to move forward with 21 Oth Street. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Fitzloffto approve the preliminary plat and the PUD contingent upon the engineering and planning comments, contingent upon a tot lot, and contingent upon removing the shared . driveway. Chair Rotty suggested between now and final plat stafflook at options to deal with the shared driveways and review this at the final plat. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 5 . Barker agreed and modified his motion. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff. Voting against: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. b) Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan - Allowing a Restaurant, Class II: Fast Food Convenience in the SSC (Spruce Street Corridor) Zoning District Applicant: McDonald's . The property is located to the south ofhwy 50, Dushane Parkway will be the main entrance into Vermillion River Crossing, and Knutsen Drive is a private drive to the south. The property is zoned Spruce Street Corridor. A class II fast food restaurant is a conditional use. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,800 sq. ft. fast food restaurant which will have a drive through and the seating capacity will be 90. The building will be 96 ft. long and 50 ft. wide. The setback requirements are met. Upon complete build out the lot coverage will be 9%. There is a drainage and utility easement located in the northern 50 ft. of the property and extends east into the Northfield clinic site. This is a mitigation required by the DNR and the PCA for storm water runoff. No development can occur within this easement. They would be required to provide 45 off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 48 parking spaces. The Council approved the unifying design theme for the Vermillion River Crossings development. The outlot areas would be required to provide at least 20% of their exterior with materials such as brick, stucco, stone, or a similar style to the building. The two main building materials are brick and stone veneer. This would meet the design standard requirements. There are two design themes that were approved by the Council. Those are the history of Farmington and the Vermillion River. The Commission needs to determine whether this proposed elevation is consistent with these two themes. The landscaping is adequate, however there is a concern with some low-growing shrubs located within a 10 ft. utility easement. Engineering will allow these shrubs provided there is a 5 ft. green space between the shrubs and the property line. The developer has agreed to this. The code requires that certain criteria be met in order to grant a conditional use permit. There will be two stacking lanes for the drive through and will converge into one. The site has two accesses into the property. The development meets all the criteria for a CUP. . Commissioner Larson thought they discussed sliding the easterly island to the west. Staff discussed this with the Traffic Engineer, he felt as long as there is adequate striping, he agreed with it. Commissioner Larson asked if there would be enough room for the drive through stacking. Mr. Kellogg, representing McDonald's stated most have one lane 180 ft. long which provides stacking for 8- 10 cars. At this site there is enough room for 16-20 cars from the pick-up window to the pay window back to the double lanes. He did not see a problem with stacking. Chair Rotty felt this will be a nice addition to the community and will support the CUP. MOTION by Larson, second by Fitzloffto close the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 6 APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the CUP and the site plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 4. DISCUSSION a) Site Plan Review - Northfield Clinic The applicant is proposing to construct a 14,639 sq. ft. medical clinic which is a permitted use in the Spruce Street Corridor with the possibility of a second phase of2,327 sq. ft. The building is proposed at 148 ft. in length and 109 ft. in width. There will be 24 exam rooms in the first phase and a total of 36 upon complete build out. The clinic will staff 12 doctors and 21 support employees. The building meets all setback requirements. The lot coverage will be 15% and 17.3% upon completion of the second phase. There is a drainage and utility easement along the north. It is required to have 81 parking spaces and they propose 82. The eastern parking lot is for customers with access onto Knutsen Drive. The employee parking is on the west side. Sidewalks will be along the southern boundary of the clinic and McDonald's. Regarding the design theme, the clinic is proposing stucco or stone for the fayade. This meets the design standards. Trees are shown along the western 10ft drainage and utility easement. Engineering will allow this with 5 ft. between the shrubs and the property line. Mr. Ken Bank, President of North field Hospital, thanked everyone for the warm reception they have received at every step in the process. This will be a high- quality clinic service and will link Farmington and Northfield together. They plan . on hiring staff from the community. Chair Rotty felt the buildings were nicely designed and will fit in well. He felt the goals of Council and staff have been met. Other buildings in the area will have to take on some of the colors and attributes into their buildings. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the site plan for the Northfield Clinic. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS c) Conditional Use Permit - Allowing for a Supply Yard at the Property Located at 21054 Chippendale Court Applicant: Patrick Regan Mr. Pat Regan has applied for a CUP to operate a supply yard in a B-1 Highway Business district at 21054 Chippendale Court. The property was previously used for the Marschall Bus Lines. There are three buildings on the site plan. Mr. Regan has entered into a 10-year lease agreement with Mobile Mini Storage. They supply mobile storage units, offices, trailers, etc. to various areas. They would also perform repair and maintenance. The first issue with the CUP is setbacks. According to code, a minimum side and rear yard setback of 50 ft. for commercial or industrial use which abuts a residential district is required. There are three options to be considered. . Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 7 . 1. The Planning Commission can require strict adherence to the 50 ft. setback. No mobile storage units could be placed within 50 ft. of the northerly property line. 2. The applicant can apply for a variance from the setback requirement in order to place the units within the required 50 ft. setback. This would require a public hearing at the Planning Commission on April 11, 2006. 3. The Planning Commission can approve a CUP allowing the storage units to be placed within the 10ft. minimum setback from the north property line. Staff recommended the Commission allow the storage units be placed within the minimum 10ft. setback from the north property line. The next issue is screening. The property is bordered by Hometown Addition to the north. According to code, screening within business and industrial districts require a 100% opaque screening consisting of a 6-8 ft. high wooden fence and landscaping or landscaping and berms or a combination of both where any of these conditions are in effect: . - Any structure, parking, or storage as adjacent to or within 100 ft. of property zoned for residential use. - Any side or rear yard of a business or industry that is across the street from a residential zone. - Any material or equipment stored outside except in display yards or for those being used for construction on the premises. There is an existing 6 ft. high chain link fence surrounding the property. There is also a row of spruce trees and deciduous trees along the border. Staff recommends additional screening is necessary such as a wooden fence or additional landscaping. There are four options available: 1. The Commission can require strict adherence to the 100% opaque screen that is required. 2. The applicant can request a variance from the screening requirement. This could require a public hearing at the Planning Commission on April 11, 2006. 3. The Commission can approve a CUP that allows a combination of both landscaping and fencing at a reduced opacity that would be acceptable to the Commission. 4. The Commission can approve a CUP that does not require additional landscaping and/or screening above and beyond what is currently in place. Staff recommended approving a CUP that allows a combination of both landscaping and fencing at a reduced opacity that is acceptable to the Commission. . Fencing within a commercial or industrial district can be located on the lot line and be up to 8 ft. in height except in the front yard. The height of the storage units is 8 ft. Mobile Mini is stacking the units 2 units high, so the stacking is 16 ft. in height. According to code, 100% screen of commercial or industrial uses Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 8 next to residential property needs to be provided. The options available for fencing are: . 1. The Commission can require strict adherence to the 100% screening requirement. Therefore, a 16-20 ft. tall fence would need to be engineered and constructed to screen storage units from the highest windows in homes facing the Mobile Mini operation. 2. The applicant can request a variance from the Planning Commission. 3. The Commission can approve a CUP on the condition that Mobile Mini no longer stacks the units in order not to require a fence over 8 ft. in height. The staff recommendation is to approve a CUP on the condition that Mobile Mini no longer stacks the units in order not to require a fence over 8 ft. in height. Mr. Pat Regan stated he responded today to staff's report and asked that staff forward his response to the Commission prior to the meeting. His response was regarding the setback, screening and fencing. He agreed with the 10ft. setback. Regarding the screening, he has worked with the neighbors to provide screening everyone finds acceptable, especially along the north line with the Hometown Development. He has constructed a solid evergreen tree screen which everyone feels is adequate. He paid to have their trees moved onto his property so they could maintain maximum use of their land for development and they would have a screen of natural materials, 20 ft. high, to screen the Mobile Mini trailers or other similar equipment. In discussions with staff prior to his decision to annex . the property, they stated they want to continue their industrial use. The industrial zoning requirements allow stacking up to 45 ft. high. Mr. Regan realizes that is really high. At that time he had a proposal with Mobile Mini and voluntarily agreed with Mobile Mini to limit the stacking to 2 units high which would be 16 ft. They understood this to be an acceptable use of the property. Mobile Mini has agreed to this restriction. They cannot agree to the 1 unit high stacking restriction suggested as that reduces by one halftheir ability to conduct business on the site. This is a deal breaker. Hometown was allowed to provide no screening on their side ofthis property line, even though all parties were fully aware of Mr. Regan's intent to continue the current use of the property. The only area along the north line is the 50 ft. wide area over which an easement was granted by Mr. Regan in favor of the City for a utility construction easement to serve 209th Street over 10 years ago. To date, Mr. Regan has not been paid for this easement. It has been discussed, but not settled. Mr. Regan would prefer the City install a similar solid evergreen screen across the remaining 50 ft. of the north line. Mr. Regan's use of his property precedes Hometown's use by over 25 years. In years past Mr. Regan has also offered to install these trees along the American Legion property, but they declined the offer. Screening along the east side is exactly has he agreed with Neil and Linda Perkins to provide as part of their earlier purchase agreement of the 100 ft wide railroad right-of-way. Again, the approved residential development plan requires no screening be done by the residential developer. There is also a 180 ft. wide buffer area which is the Vermillion Waterway. On the . south border, he borders a City ponding basin and another industrial property whose building sidewall is 28 ft. high and 700 ft. long, the former Wausau building. Mr. Regan feels there should be no more screening along the south Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 9 . border. He does feel there should be more screening or opaque fence installed on the north line between his 100 ft. wide area going westward to TH3 and the residential properties in Empire Township. The design of that is pending. The design of his driveway and parking area and any public infrastructure including the possibility of power lines and streets has not been decided. He had asked to meet with Commission members and Council members to show them the screening on the property. Mr. Regan installed 68 trees that are 12-24 ft. high and 8 ft. on center along the north property line. They put the trees in two rows. He feels the screening on the north side is done better than required by any zoning code. . Regarding fencing, he feels it is impossible for them to be required to install opaque fencing high enough to cover the trailers, trucks, or buses that are 14-20 ft. high. That is why they installed the solid evergreen screen. Should the City require Mobile Mini do something less than 2 units high, as they thought they had agreed, they would need to consider what their options would be. Neither party can agree to such a restriction. As he stated to the Council on February 21,2006 his request is that the terms ofthe CUP be based on terms and requirements allowed in the B-3 heavy business district. Under that district as stated in the code, the purpose is as a transitional district designed to provide space for certain existing commercial and industrial uses which are compatible together but are more intense and therefore incompatible with uses identified in B-1, B-2 and B-4 districts. Under this designation supply yards and truck terminals are allowed with certain standards they fully intend to meet. He was not asking for a different zoning designation. He asked the intent of the B-3 be applied to the terms of the CUP. Regarding the screening and the fencing he and the neighbors are in agreement that what has been installed is adequate to everyone. Mr. Regan feels it is necessary to take a step back and look at the kind of business they are dealing with. He has a contract to operate the school buses in this school district. They took a risk in moving their business to the industrial park and they are thrilled with other transactions they were able to proceed with. Everyone will benefit from the tax base and the growth and the newly zoned commercial designation and the expansion of the industrial park which would not have happened had he not taken the risk to move to a new phase of the bus company's growth. This property is unique. He is surrounded by properties that are being annexed for residential that were vacant before. He is still surrounded by properties located in Empire Township. He is asking to improve his property only to install City sewer and water and serve his existing buildings. Mobile Mini is an excellent interim use for this property. They are not required to construct any new buildings. They want the yard space. . Next, Mr. Regan addressed the 210th Street issue. He stated no one from the City has come to him and said this is what it is worth to us. All they have said is we want it. Mr. Regan stated he wants a yard. This is an industrial property and for them to use part ofthe rentable yard space is a significant, economical problem for them. It could cost him his tenant. They have flexibility in the lease with Mobile Mini and the first thing they did was build six new offices in his building so they could hire a sales staff to promote their business. They have hired truck Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 10 drivers, managers and sales people. They are bringing jobs to Farmington. He has 7 acres of land and it is not adequate economically. This property is not economically conducive to be developed as residential property. He considers Mobile Mini to be an excellent interim use. Mr. Regan stated if the City wants to put 21 oth Street through his property, he does not want money in return, he wants land where his tenants can stack their trailers, or park busses, etc. The target is on his property for 21 Oth Street, but Mr. Regan feels the big picture needs to be looked at is what will we do with 6-8 other property owners whose land and buildings still remain in Empire Township. They want to be cooperative. They do not want to be shoved offthis property. Chair Rotty stated he hoped Mr. Regan was not implying that staff or the Commission has been uncooperative. Mr. Regan stated he is willing to be cooperative and this is a larger picture issue than the 100 ft. wide strip he bought from Neil Perkins so his busses could get out onto TH3 safely. Chair Rotty stated the Commission has limits on what they can do and what they can control. He stated Mr. Regan brought up a lot of good ideas, unfortunately that type of decision making lies with the Council, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Regan stated this Commission and the Council has approved residential property on his border who were not required to put up screening between their property and what they knew Mr. Regan planned to do with his. Despite that he worked out screening with this neighbors. He was pleased the Council approved the rezoning and sent him back to the Commission for a CUP. He does not want to come to another public hearing about variances. He would like to work out the conditions of the CUP tonight. He and his tenants need to know they can operate on this property. He asked the Commission to approve the CUP and allow the units to be stacked 2 units high, or they will lose Mobile Mini. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Regan to explain the screening along the east border with the Perkins property. Mr. Regan stated parcel B is the land Perkins is selling to Bridgeland. The odd shaped area is 182 ft. wide on the north line, which is the railroad bed. This land is owned by the City that was taken for the Prairie Waterway. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff did not address the issue of screening on the east side for a couple of reasons. The first is the code indicates the circumstances under which screening is necessary. One of the requirements is that the business or industrial use be adjacent to or within 100 ft. of properties zoned for residential use. The residentially zoned property on the Perkins development is more than 100 ft. away which eliminates the need for screening. The code also says screening is required of any side or rear yard of a business or industry that is across the street from a residential zone. This is not a case where the Perkins property is across the street. Commissioner Larson confirmed the screening staff is recommending is along the Hometown side on the north and on the south side and the west side screening the existing houses. Staff limited the screening to the north property line across from the Hometown development. Staffhas seen the evergreen trees and acknowledged the work Mr. Regan has done. This issue is not that Mr. Regan and Hometown feel the screening is adequate. When Hometown sells the houses, the residents will not care what Mr. Regan and Hometown worked out. They will be looking at industrial storage units. The fact that other parties believe planting the trees is . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 11 . adequate is not the final decision. It is up to the Commission in dealing with the terms ofthe CUP to determine ifthat is adequate. The code puts the burden on the industrial or business property to provide the screening. There is no code requirement that if you build a residential property you are required to screen it. Staff feels some combination of fencing and trees would be appropriate. Commissioner Larson asked whose responsibility it is to put up the fence, the City's or Mr. Regan's regarding the area along the easement. Staff was not sure. Staff suggested the Commission look at the areas on either side ofthe easement. Staff would have to check with Engineering as far as planting trees or installing a fence in the easement area. Mr. Regan stated the easement is still an open issue, he has not been paid for it. He hoped the trees would be planted there so it is a contiguous natural screening. He would think that if trees were planted, if Engineering needed to pay $100 per tree to move the trees, that is worth someone paying for if they have to do the work. Mr. Regan stated he would plant them if they agreed to move them later ifthey have to come in later and do the work. Commissioner Larson understood that City Engineer Mann has attempted to settle the easement issue. Mr. Regan agreed he has. They had to hook up the sewer and water and there have been other issues to handle. Community Development Director Carroll stated standing on 209th Street looking south, the trees do not provide effective screening. You can still see the stacked units very clearly through the trees. This may change as the trees grow and fill out. Mr. Regan stated he has not heard of someone having to build a 20 ft. high fence to block trucks or trailers. He does have a chain link fence that is 6-8 ft. high. They planted the trees on their side of the fence. If they need to put slates through the fence and make the 8 ft. side solid, that would not look as nice. Right now you do not see the fence, you see the trees. He would prefer to plant more bushes to fill in the area. Mr. Regan agreed you can see the top of the boxes when they are stacked 2 units high looking straight south. At an angle, it is a solid screen. . . Commissioner Larson was upset he did not receive the e-mail prior to the meeting. Mr. Regan said he talked with staffbefore he was annexed regarding the storage company. He asked what was explained to Mr. Regan then. Community Development Director Carroll explained Mobile Mini was in and out of the picture for a while. Mr. Regan was very candid about the nature ofthe business and had brochures and pictures. At that point it was speculative that they would be a tenant. Staff had to look at that along with any other uses the property could be used for. At one point it was discussed how high the units would be stacked and staffwas told three high. Community Development Director Carroll recalls on behalf of staff they would be concerned with stacking them that high for safety and aesthetics. Staff recommended strongly against stacking 3 high. Staff fells Mr. Regan assumed that since 3 was too high, that 2 would be okay. Staff does not have the ability to guarantee the conditions the Planning Commission would put on a CUP. Staffhas tried to be clear from the beginning that the screening issues would have to be resolved. Although Mr. Regan has talked about B-3 zoning and how that philosophy should be applied here, any type of business or industrial zoning would have these same screening requirements. There are no distinctions among them. Mr. Regan agreed with everything staff said. Commissioner Larson stated anytime they can have a natural screening as opposed to a fence, he would prefer that. If looking straight ahead you can see the Planning Commission Minutes March 14,2006 Page 12 units, he suggested putting in slats until the trees grow out. He agreed with the 10 ft. setback. He agreed with stacking the units 2 units high. Commissioner Fitzloff agreed with having landscaped screening rather than a fence. He asked ifthere was room for a berm. Mr. Regan replied there is not. He agreed with stacking 2 units high. Commissioner Barker did not have a problem with the setback. He agreed with the other Commissioners on the landscaping. He agreed with stacking 2 units high. Chair Rotty agreed with reducing the setbacks. He agreed he likes trees for screening and realized they take some time to fill in. Along the easement Chair Rotty suggested as part of the CUP they require the property owner to plant the trees along the easement if it is acceptable to Engineering. He agreed with stacking 2 units high. To summarize, as far as the setbacks, the Commission agreed with the staff recommendation. As far as screening to the north the Commission agreed with the trees. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve and to direct staff to work with the City Attorney to draft Findings of Fact in support ofthe CUP. These will be brought back to the next meeting. Mr. Regan can assume the CUP has been granted and proceed accordingly. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Text Amendment to Section 11-4-3 (P) of the City Code to Modify the Street Right-of-Way and Pavement Widths The current code does not provide enough detail for right-of-way and pavement widths. The changes reflect what is required for rights-of-way and pavement widths for streets of certain widths. These will affect any developments currently under review as this is what staff has been requesting. MOTION by Barker, second by Fitzloffto close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fitzloff, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation amending zoning section 11-4-3 (P). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. DISCUSSION b) MUSA Review Committee Recommendations A number of properties have been discussed at the first two MUSA Committee meetings. There was a clear recommendation from the Committee on Newland Communities, Perkins, and Regan properties. Chair Rotty stated the biggest discussion was dealing with the Perkins property. The Regan property was simple. The Sauber property was less than 5 acres, so that was approved administratively. He recommended sending this to the Council. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to award MUSA to these properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Concept Plan - Peterson! Adelmann Properties This property is located south ofhwy 50. Mr. Peterson and the Adelmann's have entered into an agreement with a developer to explore the development of their properties in a coordinated fashion. The area to the north on the Peterson . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2006 Page 13 . property has been envisioned to be a commercial area. The property between the river and the commercial area is envisioned for high density residential homes, townhomes, etc. South of the river is all residential on both the Peterson and Adelmann properties. Community Development Director Carroll explained the transportation and various road connections. Their proposal is consistent with the master plan. Commissioner Larson stated the northern part of parcels B and C on the MUSA map have MUSA for commercial development. He asked where the boundaries are on the map. Staffwas not sure ifthe proposed uses correspond with that and in a way it does not matter. MUSA has already been recommended for all the property that is left. Commissioner Larson thought there was going to be more commercial than what is shown. Staff noted looking at the amount of acreage for commercial may be less than what was envisioned in the master plan. Some of the commercial area may be mixed use or high density. An area identified as mixed-use could qualify as commercial. They talked about developments that would have commercial on the lower level and residential above. Commissioner Larson did not want to get too far away from the original plan yet. Commissioner Fitzloff confirmed the green areas are open space and wetlands that is unusable except for trails. Staff replied much of it is flood plain, wetlands, river, etc. A park has been proposed outside of the flood plain. . Commissioner Barker liked the concept. He would like to compare it to the master plan. Chair Rotty also liked the concept. He liked the transitions between different types of uses. Mr. Dean Johnson introduced himself as the developer. He wanted to get the Commission's reaction and wanted to know how they felt about the uses. Traffic is a big stage ofthis plan. He and staff have worked well together. c) Tree Preservation Ordinance City Planner Smick and Police Chief Siebenaler have done most of the work on this item. It was agreed to bring this back to the next meeting. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Fitzloffto adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, {Z~~~ ?7?~ &Z' Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved .