Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-01-2020 (Joint Meeting)MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITE' COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 1st, 2020 — 4:15 p.m. Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Council Members Present: Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Lloyd Hilgart, and Charlotte Gabler Council Members Absent: Brian Stumpf Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, and Paul Konsor Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer and Andrew Tapper Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Special Meeting of the Monticello City Council & Planning Commission to order at 4:15 p.m. 2. Regular Agenda A. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Proposal for a 68 -Unit Twin Home Residential Development and Commercial Lodging Use Proposer: Mike Schneider Angela Schumann introduced the meeting and noted that staff, Planning Commission, and City Council members had the opportunity to visit the site prior to the start of the special meeting. She provided information about the purpose of the Concept Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and process for the meeting. Steve Grittman also noted that the submittal was not a formal land use application and was meant to provide the applicant with feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council. Grittman noted that the next step would be to apply for Development Stage PUD, which requires a public hearing and formal review. Grittman noted the location of the proposal and stated that annexation would need occur to develop the submittal. He noted that the City is undergoing a comprehensive plan update and the draft land use map illustrates the area as "Employment Campus". He added that either way, if the City's current comprehensive plan or new comprehensive plan is in place, an amendment would be required with a formal land use application. Grittman explained the request was for twin home development projects, where each building consists of two buildings for a total of sixty units that are between two and half to three stories and a total development area of eight acres. He also explained parking and access. He noted that a hotel was proposed on the southeast portion of the subject development area, that parcel is owned by the City of Monticello. Grittman stated that some right of way would need to be acquired to accommodate the project. City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — September 1 st, 2020 Page 114 Grittman reviewed preliminary comments and potential issues that would need to be resolved prior to development of the site as indicated in the staff report. An engineering report was also provided with the staff report. It was noted that more detailed plans would be necessary if the project decided to move forward in the next development approvals. Grittman opened the meeting for questions of the City Council or Planning Commission. Bill Fair had questions about the streets in terms of emergency vehicle access, snow removal and storage, and lengths of the driveways. Staff noted that those were all important areas to review with a formal land use application. It was noted that the site could likely accommodate snow removal. Sam Murdoff asked the applicant if they had any questions and would like to speak. Mike Schneider introduced his development team and explained his proposal in detail. He reiterated that there would be 39 rental twin home buildings and a 72 -unit motel. He explained that Monticello has a fair share of rental, but there are very few options for rental twin homes and that this provides greater options to residents. He also noted that the setback from the interstate would be like Monticello Crossings. Schneider commented that they are looking for an upscale hotel to locate on their development proposal and would work with Bluesky Hospitality to further narrow down their choice of a motel. Schneider also explained the development requests right-of-way needs from both the City and State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. He provided some history on the roadways and reasons to vacate it for his proposal, even with a possible expansion of the interstate from Albertville to Monticello. Schneider commented on the proposed land use designation. He believed that because the surrounding area is entirely residential, that the proposed land use designation was not appropriate. Lastly, after discussion with Wright County Assessor's Office, it was noted that an estimated additional $428,500 in real estate taxes would be collected annually if the project were completed as proposed. Charlotte Gabler responded that she sits on the I-94 Coalition. She provided some background on the future potential expansion of the interstate between Albertville and Monticello. She noted that it was an estimated 60 -million -dollar project and that the organization has been applying for funding to help push the project to a closer time horizon. She also added that a noise wall would be an additional two - million -dollars. She noted that she hears complaints often about the amount of noise from the interstate and was concerned about noise at the proposed development. She also mentioned that she would like to see some type of commercial in the area and the importance of balancing development on the east side of town with the community as a whole. City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — September 1 st, 2020 Page 214 Lloyd Hilgart added that the development would be the first thing you would see when approaching Monticello. He had concerns about the use and density of the site. Sam Murdoff echoed concerns about noise. He did not feel commercial or employment campus was the best land use for the site though. Questions also arose about the location of the hotel on the site and its proximity to residential. The developer's team responded to some of the initial concerns by members of the Council and Commission. It was noted that the hotel was just shown as a placeholder and would likely be adjusted with a formal application. They also commented that the purpose of acquiring some of the Broadway right-of-way would be to shift the development closer to the south to help with noise concerns. It was noted a smaller sized noise wall or retaining wall could be considered for construction, and that a MnDOT two -million -dollar noise wall was unrealistic and unfeasible for a private developer. The developer also noted that they would use sound buffering materials such as triple pane window and foam insulation in their housing product. There would also not be any front doors facing the interstate and that part of the intent of the twin homes was to not have a long continuous wall of townhomes, which would break up the noise better. Gabler asked if the hotel would need to be surrounded by other commercial and amenities including a restaurant. The developer noted concerns with the develop area having commercial or employment campus types of uses on the parcel. Fair asked if the rentals would have vouchers or subsidy requests. Schneider declined. He envisioned people between the ages of 25 and 40 primarily living at these units and that they would be mid to upper -end styled living. Murdoff asked if the developer considered moving the hotel to the opposite side of the development proposal. Schneider declined and noted concerns with doing SO. Gabler asked who the twin homes would serve. Schneider indicated that typically residents seek one to five-year leases and they take better care of the units. She also asked if there was a better layout for the twin homes. Schneider noted that he preferred not to sprinkle the buildings, which would be avoided with the proposed development. He noted that he would use steel siding so that it would not be as susceptible to fire damage. It was noted that the developer owns and manages rental properties in Litchfield. These units are different in that they are affordable units and were built in 1997. Hilgart noted a difference between the unit counts that were listed on the submittal and the amount Schneider proposed verbally. It was noted that the development team provided a more detailed plan with inputting setbacks and other ordinance requirements. The total proposed units would be 78 but could change based on feedback. Setbacks were discussed. It was noted by Ron Hackenmueller that a minimum of ten feet between walls of two buildings was City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — September 1 st, 2020 Page 3 1 4 required for fire access. A zoning ordinance amendment would be necessary for changes to setback. Schneider responded that he did not want to amend the ordinance, rather comply with the existing rules. He noted he would take into consideration truck turning radius for fire trucks. Matt Leonard noted concerns with the many access points shown on the drawing. Paul Konsor asked if he was the current owner of the parcel or if he considered the development on a different site. Schneider confirmed he was the current owner. In his experience, there has been no interest in employment campus for the parcel. Fair asked if the developer would own and manage the rentals. Schneider indicated that an on-site manager would live on site and serve the needs of the neighborhood. Fair did not completely agree with the density, but felt there was plenty of amenities and that it was filling a niche not seen in Monticello. Alstad entertained the development, but was concerned with the low amount of greenspace. Schneider noted that a retention pond would need to be constructed, likely closer to the bridge. He added that a fence would also be constructed around the pond and include a dog walking area/park. Jim Davidson echoed concerns about land conveyance for residential projects, access points, and density. He noted that the placement of the motel seemed out of place. Fair asked if there had been other proposals for the City owned parcel. The boards went around and summarized their concerns for the project. Overall, there was a mixture of members for and against the land use. Murdoff asked if anyone from the public would like to speak about the development proposal. No responses were recorded. 3. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:56 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: October 6th, 2020 Attest: Angela Sc h a , Community Development Director City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — September 1 st, 2020 Page 4 14