Planning Commission Minutes 09-06-2005
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6th, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order, declaring a full quorum and noting the absence of
City Planner Steve Grittman.
2. AIJProyal of the minutes of the special Planning: Commission meeting held Tuesday,
August 22nd, 2005.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST
22nd, 2005.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 4-0, WITH COMMISSIONER SUCHY ABSTAINING DUE TO
ABSENCE AI' THE NOTED MEETING.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello
O'Neill explained that the Commission should open and continue the public hearing in order
to accOlnmodate the two upcoming meetings regarding the proposed amendment. The
meetings are being held in order to gather other needed input on the proposed amendment.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE TIlE PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STROAGE TO THE OCTOBER MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a
real estate office in an existing: building in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District and a
rcquest for Variance from rcquired parking standards as regulated by the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance. Applicant: Professional Brokers Realty
O'Neill reyiewed the staff report for the requcst, explaining that the Commission had
recommended dcnial of the original CUP request, which was subsequently denied by the Council.
The applicants haye changed thc application by suggesting the remoyal of parking area. There
was some support by ncighbors and Council that if the parking lot were remoycd, this application
might bc acccptable. However, this allowance would be contrary to what the City has allowed in
the past and would require the requestcd yariance.
O'Ncill prescntcd photos ofthc arc a related to the rcquest, noting that parking is availablc on only
one side of the strcct. O'Neill also pointed out that the corncr of Elm in this arca receiyes a
significant amount of traffic. From a planning standpoint, O'Neill noted that thc original denial
was based on this area as primarily residential in character. With regards to the parking variance,
a hardship must be shown. O'Ncill commented that there is space ayailable on the site to
aeeommodatc the needed parking arca, but it would disturb the landseapc. O'Neill reported that
staffs recommendation is that the CUP and yariance be denicd.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.
Leticia DeChcnc Fulda, applicant and property owner, stated that in response to concerns, they
met with neighboring property owners. Fulda explained that they had receiycd a highlighted the
zoning map with areas where thc use would be allowed, communicatcd with City officials, gone
through the proper channels, and communicated with the neighbors. fulda noted that without
making major modifications, thc site can accommodate the needed parking. Fulda statcd that the
driveway for the property represents 1800 square fcct of parking area, and includes a two car
garage for employee parking. Fulda stated that rcquiring a parking lot would destroy the required
buffering and be a hardship because it would be visible and not utilized. Fulda indicated that she
is familiar with the comp plan, which states that buildings should be the focus, rather than parking
arcas. Although that relatcs specifically to thc central community district, FtIlda stated that she
would like that to also be part ofthis plan. Shc stated that she is amenable to the stated conditions
outlined in thc staff report for an approval. In summary, Fulda explaincd that the subjcct property
is in a PZM, which aceommodatcs a mix of busincss and residential uses, and explaincd that the
proposed use is probably less disturbing than a potential single family usc. She asked
Commission to take this into consideration whcn making dccision. Fulda thankcd thc
Commission for hearing them again.
Diane Shreycr, 723 West 5th Street, addressed the Comlllission representing several neighbors.
Schreyer stated that shc was at first against this proposal, because she saw a big business with a
big sign. Since reviewing this use with thc applicants, it has bcen her determination that the
applicants will bc ycry quiet neighbors. She would support this usc. As a neighbor, Schreyer
stated that shc would rather scc a small busincss thcre than a rental property.
.
Ed Lane, 804 Golf Course Road, spoke to the Commission. Lane statcd that his propcrty is
adjaccnt to 505 Elm. Lane stated that he originally spoke against this request because of the
proposed parking lot. He statcd that he didn't want to see landscaping removed, and still doesn't.
Lanc repOlied that the neighbors had a meeting and decided that if the busincss was limited to
three employees and thc current parking situation, they would support proposal. Lane statcd that
thc appl icants can park in thc garage, and havc two more spaccs in a turn-around that you can't
see.
2
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Frie asked what transpired at the neighborhood meeting. Lane responded that he had handed out
26 fliers, and had about 20 people attend the meeting. The applicants were there to answer
questions and indicated that they have no intention of getting bigger. Lane stated that it was asked
what if the motion limits that, and thcy agreed. Lane commcnted that everyone has scen what the
applicants intend to do and no one wants to scc the yard tore up. Frie asked if Lane could go on
record saying that he could speak for all those in attendance. Lane said that hc could not, as even
though nobody objected, he did not want to speak for thcm.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Suchy asked about the precedent that would be set by allowing the use. O'Neill explained
that this use is actually allowable in a PZM. By approving a CUP, the City would just be
stating that it is acceptable in this area. Suchy asked what happens if the business grows.
O'Neill stated that the Commission could limit the number of employees. However, parking
is based on square footage of the business use. Frie noted there would be a precedent set,
based on Cirittman's report. O'Neill agreed, stating the precedent would be for relaxing the
parking standards via the variance.
Spartz asked if the current property status was business or rcsidentialuse. O'Neill stated it
was a single-family home.
.
Dragsten asked ifthe CUP runs with land or property owncr. O'Neill stated that he bclieved it
would run with the land. Patch stated that any land use consideration runs with the land.
Dragstcn askcd how many spaces the propcrty currently had. O'Ncill stated that he believed
it to be about 5. l)ragstcn inquired whether a bond could be supplied, should parking be
needed. O'Neill stated that thc City hadn't required that previously. Patch responded that
parking violations would be a routine enforcement action. If officials saw conditions that
were not met, thcy would handle it through enforcement measures.
O'Neill noted that under normal circumstances, the proposed use would be allowed as a home
occupation.
Hilgart asked when parking was calculated, was it was calculated offthe housc only, not
including the garage. He noted that the applicants are probably not going to use the whole
house for business purposes. O'Neill agreed, stating that the calculation isn't that detailed; it
just applied the parking standards to the house. Hilgart noted that they probably meet most
clients on-site. Fulda agreed, responding that most clients are met in their own home, but
when convenicnt, then at their office. Thosc meetings would be at night or on weekends.
Fulda questioned whether the conditional use permit shall or shall not run with the land.
Hilgart asked about closings. Fulda confirmed that they would not act as a title company and
closings would typically happen at closing offices.
Frie asked about spot zoning with this approval. O'Ncill again noted that this property is in a
PZM district. Rcal cstate offices are allowed by conditional use in PZM districts. Frie
commented that by zoning ordinance, 10 spaces would be required. I"rie asked the applicants
to explain how the Commission could justify a variance.
.
Fulda responded that Professional Brokers Realty is not against building the parking lot, just
that it would be disappointing to install it. Fulda stated that with 1643 square feet of current
available parking, she bclievcs they can accommodate the required parking. O'Neill stated
that Commission has latitude to approve the variance based on square footage, and based on
how much parking is available.
3
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
.
Frie asked if when the appl icants purchased the honle, they purchased it with the intent to do
business. Fulda stated that they made an offer, contingent on City approval. When backed
up with another ofTer, they decided that they needed to take the risk. Fulda statcd that she is
now the owner and reported that they will either sell or lease the propelty if approval isn't
gained. Frie pointed out his concern of compatibility ofthis use with the neighborhood. Frie
cited the need for the Commission and Council to be consistent, noting the previous denial of
the Public Works building request.
Fulda respondcd that the Public Works use is heavy trucks, with many employees going back
and forth. Fulda explained that their use is low noise and no heavy traffic. In terms of traffic
coming in and out, there could be days when no clients are at the site. Fulda stated that this
property only abuts two residential properties, with landscaping and buffering.
Frie noted that the reasons for previous denial were the introduction of uses not consistent
with the intent of the code and the incompatibility with surrounding residential uses. Fulda
responded that to cite the use as commercial is an overstatement of the intensity of the use.
Fulda noted that traffic counts for the area make it one of the City's busier intersections. Frie
agreed, stating that the item had brought out the need for a controllcd intersection in that area.
hie noted that in Par West, the City approved a business right next door to his property. He
had visited with property owncr, who was receptive to limiting the number of employees.
Within six Inonths, there were 12 people working at that location and 10 cars parked there.
Frie stated that the Commission could require a maximum number of employces and that this
CUP be only fi)f one year and then reevaluated for review. O'Neill said that could be
adhered to, and there is a precedent for granting CUP with limits to review later.
.
Posusta asked O'Neill and Patch if the requests were approved by the Commission and
Council, would the house be taxed as a commercial site. O'Ncill confirmed. Patch agrecd,
stating that it would be taxed as commercial even if it were a residential rental property.
Posusta asked about requiremcnts for handicap accessibility. Patch stated that he had Inet
with the applicants, reviewed each of the required aspects and advised them in that regard.
Posusta noted his pro-business attitude, but stated that he does not agree with putting a
busincss in residential area. Posusta also stated that they should have to comply with
ordinance parking requirements, just like everybody else.
Frie asked Dragsten, as the prcviously dissenting vote on the move to deny, what his rationale
for approval is. Dragsten stated that in his opinion, these applicants are doing this the right
way and above-board. Dragsten stated that the City has let businesses with parking issues
build out without all the parking they needed parking right away. Dragsten stated that ifnot a
bond, then the applicants could post the cash. Then it becomes a choice that either they build
or the City builds it when needed. Patch stated that in setting the interim use for one year, the
bond would be viable and subject to review. That would be reasonable in terms of
enforcement.
Frie stated the Commission still has to have ajustification for the variance on the parking lot.
Dragsten noted other situations of dcmonstrated parking. Frie asked about a home business.
Fulda responded that she and her partner each already have their own homes. All they are
seeking is to havc their desks in the same place.
.
Lisa Martin, co-applicant, addressed the ConHnission. She stated that a potential way of
addressing the parking had come up earlier. Martin stated that only 396 square feet ofthe
home will be used for the business. The parking requirement should be based off of what
4
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
will actually be used for the business. It would be a hardship to build an unnecessary parking
lot and to take out all the landscaping.
.
Hilgart commented that this area is zoned PZM and is on an already busy road. lIe noted he
was not present at the last meeting and stated that a lot of businesses come in and exceptions
are made based on the volume of traffic they create. Hilgart stated that he believes this use is
not more intrusive than a salon in a residential neighborhood. He questioned why the
Conunission wants the applicants to tear out landscaping and put in a parking lot if they don't
need it. He agreed that the Commission could limit them to a number of employees as a
solution.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
CUP FOR A COMMERCIAL REAL EST A TE USE, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT
THE USE WOULD NOT CREATE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES WITH THE
SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT
THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. Addition of buffering at the perimeter of thc sitc to comply with the city's bufferyard
ordinance.
b. Limit the total number of employees to 2 agents and 1 administrative assistant and
limit the total numbcr of cars to 6.
'I'hc Commission diseusscd thc number of parking spaces. Hilgart stated that the statemcnt
regarding vehicles could also be limited to current available parking. Frie stated that even
though it might be considered sufficient, from his perspective, they still need to comply with
the ordinance.
.
FRIE AMENDED TilE MOTION TO INCLUDE A ONE YEAR REVIEWAL
PERIOD FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
O'Neill stated that it is also presumed that the garage would be used only for parking and not
storage.
Posusta noted that there are other items coming up on the agenda that would have to do with
parking. Hilgart responded that those each have different conditions.
Suchy stated that her concern is that the Commission needs to place too many conditions on
the requests to have staff enforce. She asked how the City will monitor this. Patch responded
it would be based on complaints. Suchy stated that shc thinks the applicants are trying to
make SOlneth ing work that doesn't belong in this location.
O'Neill commented on the ordinance design standard, which typically requires curb and
striping for parking lot. Not requiring the parking lot would also be a precedent as relatcd to
these items.
CHAIRMAN FRIE CALLED FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
.
MOTION FAILS 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY, SPARTZ AND FRIE IN
DISSENT.
5
. I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRlE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON
FINDINGS OF FACT AS FOLLOWS.
Thc proposed use is located in a neighborhood dominated by low density, single family
residcntial houses.
The PZM District allows for business uses in areas of transition to high density residential, or
mixing of commcrcial and high density residential uses.
The uses in the surrounding neighborhood do not support thc conditions ncccssary for the
introduction of a commcrcial usc as required by the Zoning Ordinancc.
The property, if converted to business use, would not be able to accommodate the required
parking supply as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
The property requires significant buffering and landscaping to screen the use and activity
from the adjacent residential property.
No hardship exists to support the request for a variance ti'om the parking regulations.
The propeliy can be put to a reasonable use under the PZM regulations without the need for a
varIance.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH
COMMISSIONERS DRAGSTEN AND HILGART IN DISSENT.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO DENY TI IE VARIANCE FROM TI IE
CITY'S PARKING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICES.
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Continued Public Hcaring - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a
drive~through t~lcility in the Central Community District and to allow joint parking and
drives, and consideration of a rcqucst for Variance from parking lot standards as rcquired by
the Monticello Zoning: Ordinancc. Applicant: Masters Fifth Avcnue, Inc.
O'Neill presented the staff report, noting that the subject site is within the Central
Community District. O'Ncill cxplaincd that thc applicant is seeking the removal of singlc-
family homcs and replacement with commercial/retail space. In terms of the comprehensive
plan, O'Neill reported that the proposed use is consistent, and consistent with zoning
standards. O'Neill stated that Drive-throughs are allowed by CUP in thc CCD, and are
intended to be designed to create little obstruction to the downtown.
O'Neill referred to Exhibit Z, stating that the site does have issues relating to screening of the
parking areas, and reported that there is a deficiency of parking stalls. That is when taking
into account that the wholc site will be open to the public. As allowcd by thc parking
standards for the CCD, the applicant provide 60% of required parking and then supplied
funds to build parking nearby. O'Neill explained that the site plan includcs on-strcet parking,
but is still 8 short of the required 60%. As far as the other conditions, there is some
additional lighting and landscaping needed and the signage package is incomplete. O'Neill
reported that DAT is working with the applicant on those items. O'Neill indicated that DAT
did review and approvc thc plans in tcrms ofthc information available on materials, lighting,
and signage.
.
6
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
.
With those notations and others listed in Exhibit Z, O'Neill stated that staff is recommending
approval.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing
Brad Johnson, representing Masters 51h Avenue as thc developer, explained that they had
spent timc with DA T in a review ofthc downtown design standards. Johnson introduced
Gcorge Fantauzza, project architect.
Frie askcd Johnson about the noted conditions. Johnson stated that they are in agreement
with all conditions.
Fantauzza indicated that they had worked through parking on the site, making improvements
that they believe improve parking as a whole in the downtown area. Fantauzza noted that
thcy are working with Xccl on thc powcrlines in the area. Fantauzza restated that they have
no problem meeting the outlined conditions.
Hearing no furthcr comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked about the parking deficiency. O'Neill stated that whcn calculating the total
amount needed, then what 60% of that amount is, then adding back what is available on-
street, they are short about 8 spaces. O'Neill statcd that there is available parking in other
areas to absorb the deficiency.
.
Spartz asked about barriers obstructing a clear drive aisle through the parking arcas. Johnson
explained those barriers arc on propcrty they do not own. He responded that there is a
waterline which runs under the road. 'The current property owner is concerned that heavy
trucks would disturb the waterline. Johnson stated that thcy would like to work with the
property owner in the next phasc to improve that parking area. He commented that for this
phase, they believe the proposed loop arrangcment improves parking in the immediate area.
Suchy askcd about on-street anglcd parking in terms of Public Works and snowplowing.
Patch noted that Public Works had madc comments on this plan in regard to plowing, which
the applicants have agreed to.
Frie asked about landscape plans and thc recommendation to increase the number of
plantings. Frie asked if there is now a building landscape plan available. Fantauzza
responded that a draft landscape plan is available, but that the ultimate powerpole relocation
will affect the final landscape plan. Frie commented that plan is also subject to the review
and approval of the City. O'Neill illustrated thc draft plan and stated that as part of the
permit process, another will be submittcd. Frie made note of staffs landscaping
requirements. Fantauzza stated that the final plans will mcct City approval and type.
Fantauzza also noted that staff had rcqucsted that the paver and lighting pattern continuc
down from the insurance agency. They will be tearing out the sidewalk at Locust and
bringing that into compliance.
Frie noted that if a variance is approved, the applicants will still bc rcquired to pay into
downtown busincss fund.
.
Fric commentcd on thc condition requiring a detailed signagc plan. Fantauzza stated that as
not all tenants are known, each time they apply for a sign specific to the tenant, they would
apply for it with a detailed plan. Frie asked ifthey are familiar with the sign ordinance.
7
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Fantauzza stated they will comply and they understand the requirements.
.
Posusta noted the parking issue. Posusta stated that he doesn't understand the downtown
efficiency parking fund. He inquired where the funds go and how they are utilized. O'Neill
responded that the ordinance requires a certain amount of parking. The applieants are
allowed a reduction up to the 60% mark if they allow their parking areas as publie parking.
O'Neill stated that the theory behind this is that the parking goes further if everyone can park
everywhere. lIe stated that the method has been working and has consolidating parking. In
this case, the parking is below that allowable 60%, but still requires the applicant to
contribute funding. It is up to the Commission and Council to determjne if it is acceptable
based on surrounding conditions. Posusta asked how much they would pay into the fund.
O'Neill stated it would be approximately $2000 per deticient stall. Posusta asked how this
helps. O'Neill responded that it funds parking in other locations downtown.
Koropchak reported that OAT has approved materials, lighting, pavers and landscaping.
They would see the signage package at a later date.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY 'TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY IN THE
CCD DIS'TRICT, AND TO ALLOW FOR SHARED PARKING AND DRIVES, WITH
THE COMMENTS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. THE RECOMMENDATION
IS BASED UPON THE FINDINGS THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD COMPLY
WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
PLAN AND LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE AREA.
.
1.
The applicant must submit a revised landscape plan showing screening of the parking and
drivc-through arcas from adjacent properties and the public street. All proposed parking lot
islands must also be landscaped.
2. The applicant shall construct the on-street angled parking spaces at his own expense, and pay
a fee to the general downtown parking fund for any deficiencies in required parking provided.
Planning staff calculates the remaining deficiency at a total of 8 parking spaces.
3. On-street parking areas shall be redesigned to show the corner between the on-street parking
areas as 40 feet from the corner to the curb and to remove all handicap stalls from the on-
street areas to the ofT-street parking area.
4. The applicant must sublnit proposed building materials, subject to City staff approval.
Material changes to the building quality or landscaping shall require further review by
Planning Commission and City Council.
5. The applicant shall install street lights along Third Street and Locust Street, consistent with
the existing ornamental street lighting pattern.
6. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan upon building permit which is consistent
with the City's Downtown Revitalization Plan and Section 3-9 orthe Zoning Ordinance.
7. All casements, grading, drainage and utilities arc subject to the City Engineer's review and
approval.
8. Recommendations of other City Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6105
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPOVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE
COMMENTS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS 'IlIAT TIlE
PROPOSAL WILL COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE.
Spartz and Dragsten commented on parking situation in the downtown area.
O'Neill noted that a recent parking study found ample parking in the downtown area. He
noted that the City has been using parking on-street to help support rcdevelopment. Dragsten
noted there was also a parking deficiency in Landmark I. O'Neill confirm cd they were about
15 spaces short, for which they put in funding. O'Neill illustratcd other parking
improvements in the immediate area.
MOTION FAILS 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS HILGART, DRAGSTEN AND SPARTZ
IN DISSENT.
MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND FRIE IN DISSENT.
Frie asked the other Commissioners if thcy wcre receptive to tabling the itcm for further
review rather than dcnying the variance.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION.
MOTION '1'0 RESCIND SECONDED BY COMMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO TABLE THE MOTION ON THE
PARKING VARIANCE FOR LANDMARK SQUARE II TO ALLOW FURTHER
REVIEW OF THE PARKING DEFICIENCY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Posusta asked why Hilgart voted to deny the variancc. Hilgart stated that the Commission
needed to be consistcnt and he was persuaded by the prescntcd arguments.
Dragsten stated that there is no available land to expand parking in this case, in the last there
was. I Iilgart stated that there is also already a lack of parking. Dragsten stated that tabling
allows the applicant and staff an opportunity to review current and available parking.
Suchy asked ifthe Commission can approve the request subject to City staff to work out thc
details. hie statcd that the previous motion allowed f'(Jr that scenario.
.
9
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
8. Considcration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to thc redevclopment plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. I and TIF Plan for 'I'll" District No. I ~35
conform to the general plems for the development and redevelopment of the eitv.
Applicant: Master's Fifth Avenue. Inc.
Koropchak noted that given Commission's previous action, thc Commission has two choices:
they can make a motion to adopt the resolution subject to the variance being approved, or
table action.
Frie asked about the resolution in relationship to the reeommended approval of the CUP.
Koropchak noted that until both the CUP and variance were approved, the proposal wouldn't
be consistent with the comp plan. Koropchak stated that if approved, the resolution would be
subject to further approval of the variance. O'Neill agreed.
Frie asked if the applieants are found to meet the parking requirement, is it possible to go
forward at City Council level. Frie noted that by tabling the variance, the Commission gave
the applicants the opportunity to resolve the issue without coming back.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FINDING
THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND TIF PLAN FOR TIF
DISTRICT NO. 1-35 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, CONTINGENT ON
PROVIDING PROOF OF PARKING CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE ORDINANCE.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y.
9. Publ ic l1carin~ - Consideration of a Request for Prel iminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a
Concept Stage and Dcvelopment Stage Planned Unit Development to Allow Multiple Buildings
and Uses with Joint Parking and Drives in the 1-2 Zoning Distriet. Applicant: Blue Chip
Development
Patch provided the staff rcport, explaining that the applicant is seeking a preliminary plat and PUD
to create three lots in which the newly created parcel would have access and parking via joint
drives and parking as allowed via the PUD. Patch reported that the sitc plan mects thc rcquired
setbacks for parking, access, and circulation. However, Patch noted that staff has two concerns.
Staff is suggesting that applicant provide proofthat there will be no contlict in parking and
execute a contract related to joint parking. Secondly, parking seems to be quite expansive, without
islands or landscaping as required by code. In terms of landscaping, Patch statcd that the terms of
the ordinance have been met, with the exception of the required 17 overstory trees and the addition
of 54 plant units to equal thc rcquirements of the bufferyard ordinance.
Frie asked about overstory trees in terms of meeting thc rcquirement. Patch responded that in
example, overstory trees could be 6-foot coniferous or 2.5 caliper inches at 1 foot above ground.
They will need to be trees that will grow to be over-story.
.
Patch noted that the outdoor storage and trash cnclosure issues can be resolved with staff. Patch
stated that the applicant has mct with the City Engineer and Public Works to resolve utility issues.
Patch stated that staff recommend approval, eontingent upon staff comments and conditions.
10
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Spartz asked about potential outdoor storage on this site in relationship to the proposed ordinance
amendment. Patch responded that at this point, none is proposed. This building was considered in
those discussions, as presently undeveloped residential property exists along south of this parcel.
A bufferyard is required along that line. The applicant is showing half ofthe bufferyard, as
required, which is a 50' buffer. In that area, they will also be required to supply half ofthe
required plant units.
Frie recommended that the applicant attend the upcoming outdoor storage meetings Applicant and
property owner Brad Barger noted that he had been in attendance.
Dragsten asked about the type of building materials. Patch stated that it would be an insulated
smooth panel and referred to the illustrated elevation included in the Commission's packet. Patch
stated that it is a metal panel, which is allowed in this district. Dragsten asked if a platted lot
needs to abut a public road. Patch noted it did not if accomplished by a PUD, which is true in this
case. Dragsten confirmed there would be three separate lots.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Hearing no f1ll1her comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Suchy asked Patch if the City has required that operating hours work together in the past or ifthis
requirement is new. Patch stated that it is not new. The number of parking stalls depends on the
numbers of empIoyecs on each shift, which is relevant to how many parking stalls are required.
For the purpose of joint parking and drives, all three need to work together. If each is sold to a
different party, the agreement needs to cover that circumstance if all three arc running 24-7 with
lllultiple shifts. Suchy asked if they can proceed with the proposed parking plan even without
tenants. Patch stated they could proceed now, based on the base parking requirements. This
development will meet the base formula. Patch stated that based on the size of the parking lot, this
item should not be an issue, and the propeliy owner can develop additional parking if needed.
Frie asked if the applicant wanted to make the proposed uses known at this time. Brad Barger,
Suburban Manufacturing and Blue Chip Development, addressed the Commission, stating that one
of the uses is a tool and die making company with 10 employees. Barger also noted that Precision
Technologies is looking to expand here as well. Both companies are expected to provide high
wages. Frie asked if Barger is familiar with the listed conditions and ifhe has any concerns.
Barger stated he believes all conditions can be resolved with staff.
Posusta asked what zoning exists along the south property line. Patch stated that he believes it is
part of the R-PlJD parcel. Posusta stated his concern is that propeliy's future buffering
requirement. Patch stated that they will be responsible for 50% of the butfer yard,just as this
developer will. In terms of screening and distance, the City has then required the appropriate
bufferyard. Posusta sees the advantage to that, but any other beyond what is required, seems not
very intelligent. Patch stated that when NAC wrote the report for requirements for landscaping, he
is not sure that they took into account all property lines, including internal property lines. Ifthe
Commission wants to address that, they can. However, the bufferyard requirement still applies.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BLUE CHIP DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE COMMENTS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS OUTLINED BELOW, AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS
THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD COMPLY WITH 'rHE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE AREA.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ
11
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
.
MOTION BY COMMISSION HILGART TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE CUP
FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
LISTED TN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS
APPROPRIA TE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND TIm PROPOSED SITE.
1. The applicant shall provide proofthat there will be no substantial conflict in the
operating hours of the buildings who are proposing to share parking facilities,
2. All parties involved in the joint parking agreement shall execute a contract approved
by the City Attorney and filed with the County Recordcr.
3. Applicant shall propose an alternate parking lot configuration for the new building that
would provide better circulation and drainage, subject to City staff review and
approval.
4. The landscape plan must be revised to show thc required number of plantings for the
overall site as well as the residential bufferyard, subject to City staffs review and
approval.
5, The applicant must submit plans showing the proposed locations and dimensions of
any outdoor storage, if any, as well as the location and screening materials for trash
enclosures, subject to City staff approval.
6.
. 7,
8,
9,
Prior to consideration of a final plat, a lighting plan must be submitted compliant with
regulations outlined in Section 3-2,H of the Zoning Ordinance,
The applicant shall submit a signage plan compliant with Scction 3-9.E.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance,
All grading, drainage and utilities plans and easements are subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer.
Recommendations of other City Staff~ Planning Commission and/or City Council.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Public Hcaring - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Pc I'm it for a Concept Stage
Planncd Unit Dcvelomnent for a 372 unit multi- and single-f,unilv residential development.
Applicant: Ocello, LLC
O'Neill reviewed the stall report, noting the sitc location near Jefferson Commons, bctween
commercial and residential property. O'Neill eXplained that a small piece of the site is dcsignated
within thc guide plan as commercial. O'Neill noted that the boundaries of the comp plan guide
map are not nccessarily strict zoning boundaries. llowever, the Commission will need to
detcrmine if the proposed use is consistent with the comp plan.
.
Mike Gail', engineer for MFRA, addressed thc Commission rcpresenting applicant Occllo, LLC.
Gail' statcd that this plan reprcsents a transition from residential uses within the proposed Poplar
Hill dcvelopment, to commcrcial and trailer park uses. Gail' recognized that the current applicant
is for concept revicw, with more steps to follow. They have also incorporated the 2100 feet of
frontage along trailer park, and provided open space and park under the power line area. Gail'
12
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
statecl that the site presents a complex set of conclitions. He commented that the concept attempts
to achieve and accommoclate these conditions, including existing ancl proposecl development ancl
stated that the applicant believe they've offered a reasonable transition.
Gail' inclicated that the applicant has been working with the adjacent property owner, in arriving at
this plan ancl gaining his support in moving this project forward. The plan represents 5.5 units per
acre, overall, including 62 single family units. Gail' recognized that the the staff report noted that
subsequent review will require adclitional plans ancl a more sophisticated design for the roadways.
Frie asked if this project is contingent upon the construction of School Boulevarcl through this
area. Gail' stated that this project becomes an economic factor in paying for School Boulevard.
Posusta confirmed that School Boulevard is going to be put in through Weinand's property. Frie
asked about a timeline for School Boulevarcl. Gail' stated that it would be constructed through this
site in October of2005. Gail' discussed the old sewage pools, which have been approved for
clevelopment by MPCA. The applicant's plan has them developed as storm water ponding for the
area.
Gail' concluded by reviewing some of the 17 development stage conditions outlined within the
staff report. Gail' stated that there is a solid rational for the shown transitions of land use. The
applicant is provicling guidelines for buffering, both along the trailer park and School Boulevard.
The City's transportation plans are also being accommoclated.
.
O'Neill agreed that Gail' had addressecl a nLllnber of the issues outlined by Grittman. However,
one of staff's primary concerns was that the plan could be modified to have like honies to like
homes, with transitions between uses macle in rear yards. Other items that will need to be
adclressed at thc next review stage are ample buffering, design oftownhomes on the perimeter, and
the realignment of Reclford Lane.
Shawn Weinand, property owner ancl applicant, made himself available for questions.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Shannon Dobbick, 3692 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission. Dobbick indicated that the
reason she and her husband hacl purchased thcir lot along Redford was because it was not a
through street. ]n talking with neighbors, Dobbick ancl others are concerned that this will be
a through street with a conncction to School Boulevard. Dobbick notecl the number of
chilclren in the neighborhood and stated that she would rather the street go south.
Mike Sullivan, 3554 Redford Lane, adclrcssecl the Commission. He noted that he is the last
lot on the current cul-de-sac. He stated that he woulcllike to keep it as a cul-de-sac. He
stated that he is also worried about if the road continues and connects to School Blvd.
Dobbick indicated his concern about property values in light of this proposal.
.
Weinand noted that Redford Lancl was always designed to be a through street; the cui-dc-sac
was temporary. He explained that it will provide an alternative route to Chelsea and School.
He stated that he doesn't know if anything can be done about thc alignment of Reclforcl, as it
was known that Redford would be a through street. To answer questions regarcling dollar
values, he notecl that they had developed Grovelancl1 ~4, which he believed to be nice
developmcnts. Weinand stated that he can't say we'll bring high-end housing, but that they
will provide a transition to the adjacent high-end housing. He notecl that they are still
working with builders. Weinancl stated that at this point, they arc trying to get a layout ancl
density established that will allow them to move forward to product type.
13
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Frie asked Weinand to comment on whether he is receptive to the street extension to the
south. Weinand indicated that he is.
.
Kimberly Cahill, 3676 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission, stating that she had
purchased her lot because of the location and cul-de-sac. She stated that she had no idea it
was a temporary cul-de-sae. Cahill stated that her concern is the through traffic on Redford.
Frie stated that regardless of what happens with this proposal, Redford was intendcd to go
through. lIe encouraged rcsidents to keep track of this proposal in that regard.
Cory Kirk, 3712 Redford, also addressed the Commission on the issue of traffic, wh ich is his
main concern. Hc stated that there arc always a lot of pcople out and about in the
ncighborhood.
Hcaring no furthcr comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart asked O'Neill what the maximum units per acre is when designated medium density.
O'Neill statcd that it is typically somewhere between 8-12 units per acrc. Weinand stated
that at the time Chelsea Road was put into the Groveland area, a site they owned was
designated as medium density. At that time, they were encouraged to change that property to
commercial. It was discussed at that time, that this area would instead take the place of that
residential. Weinand expressed his opinion this area is not particularly conducive to
commercial. Weinand stated that he had committed to School Boulevard with the idea that
this site would be looked at for somc density. Weinand again noted all the site constraints,
and stated that given those, this would still be a nice-looking project.
.
Hilgart asked how long the trailer park would remain. Weinand stated that the more value is
created around the park, the sooncr it will become of value to sell. In the distant future, it
will be rcplaeed with developments ofthis nature. O'Neill confirmcd Weinand's recollection
ofthe residential and commercial sites, stating that could have bccn followed up with a comp
plan change at that time, but it may bc better to deal with it now.
Frie asked if the subject sitc needs to be annexcd. O'Neill confirmed that id does.
Hilgart stated that it is nice to see a devclopment come in with a lower density than what
would be allowed. Weinand indicated that staff had provided smIle direction in that regard
and a decision had also becn made on what was sellable.
Dragsten stated that in terms of commercial and rcsidential uses, he doesn't know if th is is the
bcst use of th is sitc. lIe doesn't know if changing to residential is the best use of the
property. Dragsten agreed with Grittman's idea of back to back units and thc climination of
privatc roads. He recommended additional park areas and trail conncetions with the proposcd
number of units. Dragsten also expressed concern over the size and design of un its,
indicating that these should not be starter units.
hie asked if the Parks CmIlmission had reviewed thc plan. O'Neill stated it is a condition of
approval for moving forward to development stage. Frie asked what a quadriminium is.
Weinand stated it would bc a 4-plex.
Spartz stated that he likcs the reconllIlendation on the southern access to Highway 25 and
(Jrittman's suggestion on thc unit arrangement.
.
Suchy asked t'l1l" proposed lot sizcs. Gail' stated that thcy arc about 140' x 80', the other tier is
125' x 60' or 120' x 60', Suchy asked if they would be opposed to Grittnlan's design.
14
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Weinand stated that they would rather have a full ncighborhood along pond, with a softer
transition between three and four units and thc six and eights. He indicated that they don't
think it's as nice of a transition.
Suchy stated she would also like to see more park land. Weinand noted the green space near
the pond and along School Boulevard. Weinand thinks the pond will be nicer amenity. He
also noted the wetland eomplcx and Poplar Hill park. Suchy stated that she also likes the
recommended access onto 25.
Weinand stated that they are opposed to an emergency entrance into the park, as they feel it
will ercate problems.
Frie noted the Parks Commission recommendation and the requirement for 13.3 acres of
dedication. Frie asked if the City wants the 13.3 acres of park full dedication. Dragsten and
Suchy stated that Parks Commission should comment on the issue.
Frie noted the purpose of a PUD, which is to provide flexibility in exchange for a
development of superior quality. The attributes that Planning Commission will look at in
particular arc superior building quality and landscaping. Weinand stated that they can
provide that as long as it is not out of context for the location of this project.
Frie stated that his attitude on townhomes is that the City's current ratio of single family to
townhomes is unbalanced. He also noted the required plans for development stage approval.
.
Posusta addressed the Redford Lane resident comments. lIe stated that he doesn't bel ieve
that people will use Redford as a short cut; they will use School Boulevard instead. Posusta
stated that he takes offense that the City would make the developer dedicate parkland when
there are 40 acres next door. Posusta stated that this is the developer's land and money.
Additionally, the City will have to maintain it and take care of it. Posusta indicated that he
agreed with Weinand that there should not be a connection to thc mobile home park. It will
crcate issues with both sides.
Posusta asked Weinand if he is aware of what the arcas shown as pond were previously used
for. Weinand stated that Bret Weiss has provided a letter from MPCA regarding soils. The
MPCA had cleared the area for development and Weinand noted that they could put units
there, but he believes the ponds create a nice dimension. Posusta stated he doesn't see any
drive areas into the quads. Gair replied that there is a drive-aisle between the buildings.
Posusta asked if there is adequate parking. Gair continlled. Posusta commented that thc fire
department would review this plan for any issues. Posllsta stated that the unit number is a bit
high; it should be scaled back and the lot size should be increased. He asked ifthc lot sizes
are similar to Groveland.
Weinand stated that there are some 60' lots in Groveland. Weinand responded that for a
transitional area, it is difficult to get larger lots. He noted he has to also achieve a certain
density to afford the assessment for School Boulevard. They also tried to keep all unit access
off Redford Lane. Weinand reported that he also worked with Kjcllberg to obtain as much
land as possible. He noted that the medium density would also allow much more density,
which they have given up to get the single family transition. Weinand stated that he is trying
to get a consensus on whether this is a desirable project that can move forward.
.
Posusta asked if these are all City streets. Weinand confinned and stated that the interior
streets are driveways, the balance are 60' streets right of way.
15
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PUD BASED ON THE
COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6,2005 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, AND BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT
STAGE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
II. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for a Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Travel
Center 2nd Addition; Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit
Development to Allow a Drive-in Convenience Food Establishment. Motor Fuel
Station/Convenience Store. Car Wash, Joint Parking and Drives. Open and Outdoor Storage.
and a Retail Commercial Development and a Variance to Parking Requirements in the B-3
Zoning District. Appl icant: IRET Properties
O'Neill reviewed the staff report for the application, stating that the applicants are seeking a
development stage PU 0, prel iminary plat and related variance request.
.
In outlining the comments from the report, O'Neill noted the relationship of the Oakwood
access alignments with the McDonald's site. The developer has worked through these
options and this plan represents the best alternative. O'Neill stated that the one minor
problem on the site from a staff perspective is parking. 'fhe parking is sufficient for the
Holiday and Wendy's PUD, however lnore is supplied on the Holiday side than the Wendy's
side, which staff believes may pose a problem for users. As part of the PUD, O'Neill
eXplained that the Commission can grant approval of cross-parking as long as it is functional.
In terms of consistency with the original concept stage PUD for this part of the site, O'Neill
noted that this plan does incorporate the central through drive.
The request for preliminary plat is needed to simplify the land sale for the Wendy's site.
O'Neill explained that the applicants arc also sceking to purchase additional Cedar Street
right-of-way. The right-of way on Highway 25 is public land, and might be in control of the
state. As far as access, there is a right turn in only at the access point closest to Highway 25
and full movement access across from McDonald's. O'Neill indicated that Exhibit Z outlines
additional concerns, including the need for a complete sign package. O'Neill cited that as
critical, as there is currently no cohesive sign package that detai I the entire PUD. Staff would
recommend approval subject to the sign package coming back to the Commission.
Chairman hie opened the public hcaring.
A representative for IRET Properties, made himself available for questions from the
Commission. He cxplained that Holiday and Wendy's also had representation to answer
more specific questions. The IRET representative statcd that they had been working with the
City to make the whole block as a unit.
.
Victor Sacco, Holiday Companies, reviewed the items listed in Exhibit Z. Specifically, Sacco
asked the Commission to consider the removal of item 3, which requires the construction of
future parking at an earlicr time. Sacco stated that this is not possible as the applicant doesn't
own that property. Sacco stated that they have accommodated Wendy's employee parking
behincl Holiday. He noted that Wendy's has also reduced the size of their building to increase
there parking.
16
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
Frie noted that parking was a concern in other areas of thc plat, but as Ultra Lube is not a part
of this portion of the PUD, this may not be an issue. Frie noted that with resubmitted plans,
perhaps these conditions can be addressed.
O'Neill explained that the additional parking isn't necessarily rcquired for this part of the site
Commission could require it if they felt it was needed. Frie asked who owns the property
shown for future parking. O'Neill responded that he believes thc property is owncd by
Mielke Brothers, LLC and noted that this is a development stage PUD, so cverything in this
site works together. lie stated that in thc best case scenario, the plan would come before the
Commission with everything for each property However, with multiple property owners in
this case, staff felt Commission could decide if they want to see it move forward, or if it can
be resolved with staff. Frie inquired if Commission approves the requests on the basis that
the applicants and staff work on the conditions, is it staff's opinion that the conditions can be
resolved. O'Neill indicated that it most likely could, noting that the sign package will be an
important part of justifying the PUD.
Sacco also asked the Commission to reconsider the requirement for alignment of access
points between Holiday and Wendy's. Sacco stated that with so many plan reviews, this is
the only scenario that works for Wendy's. Frie stated they could eliminate that condition.
Sacco also explained that Holiday and Wendy's will be seeking a new pylon in the existing
location. He stated they would explore with staff any additional landscaping on the corner.
Sacco reported that they would like a high-rise sign as they see it as important to their
business. Sacco stated that similar commercial users in the area also have 57' high rise sign.
Sacco provided an illustration of the sign. Frie asked if this sign is proposed for the northeast
or northwest part of the site. Sacco stated northwest.
.
Frie asked if with this addition, what Commission received is complete signage plan. Sacco
stated it is.
Sacco asked if the final plat would be approved here. O'Neill stated that item goes straight to
Council, along with the Cedar Street item.
Frie asked ifthe applicants are receptive to condition II, which requires a complete lighting
plan, compliant with regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Sacco stated they were.
Frie inquired about whether they will also comply with those conditions not addressed.
Sacco stated that they would comply.
June Mahalo, real estate director with Wcndy's, stated that they had gone through Exhibit Z,
and concur with Holiday on the removal of conditions 3 and 5. Mahalo also indicated that
they would seek approval on the high-rise sign as they believe it represents less signage on
the site.
.
Posusta asked whcther using existing utility connections will be an issue. Maholo stated it
should not. Posusta asked why this was a condition. O'Neill commented that existing
connection exists, which are preferable to use instead of digging up new street. He noted if
connections aren't there or feasible to use, the applicants may look for something else.
Posusta asked why the applicants have to provide proof of cross easements. O'Ncill stated
that is a requirement of a PUO, as they are combining parking and drives. Everyone
identifies the use ofthese areas so that individual propeliy owners cannot prohibit the use by
using barricades, for example. O'Neill stated that solidifies the PUD in that when you buy
thc land, you know you arc a partner.
17
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6105
hie asked about a time frame for project development. Sacco stated the project would occur
in the spring.
.
Sacco asked the Commission for feedback on the removal of condition 3. O'Neill
reconlll1ended the Commission leave it in and let the issue be resolved with staff as the
project develops. As long as statl know there are cross easements, it won't be an issue until
the next portion ofthe PUD develops. Frie inquired how the Commission can tie the future
parking into this approval ifrequired parking is met.
Schumann noted that the preliminary plat and development stage PUD unite the site and
property owners for consideration as a unit. Parking is part of that consideration.
Lee Mielke, representing Mielke Brothers, LLC as the adjoining property owner, spoke to the
Commission. Mielke asked why their property should be encumbered with more parking,
when the applicants already have enough parking. He stated he would like the Commission
to strike condition 3 as he doesn't want to have to ask for a change later. 1RET
representatives stated that the two lots that are shown for consideration in the PUD are owned
by IRET. IRET is acquiring some land from Mielke in order to make the access and site plan
work. Frie clarified that their request doesn't have anything to do with future parking, which
is on Mielke's site. Posusta noted that they are also purchasing City property.
Dragsten asked why condition 3 is needed. O'Neill stated that it is there because it was
identified in original concept stage PUD as parking. O'Neill agreed that according to actual
parking stall numbers, there is sufficient parking for Wendy's. The applicant's would rather
the future parking shown on the concept stage PUD be delayed.
.
Frie confirmed then that the applicants are in compliance. Dragsten noted that the whole site
has to work together. Dragtsen stated he also has concerns about signage. Dragsten stated
that he would rather the plan comes back to Commission. He noted the Planning
Commission had spent time working on the sign ordinance and he would like to see the
whole package in relationship to the site and ordinance.
Spartz indicated that he is also concerned about signagc, but agreed that condition 5 regarding
realignment of the Holiday and Wendy cross-entrance isn't necessary. lIe stated that he is
still a little confused on the parking requirements.
Suchy stated that she is okay with removing condition 3, but would like the sign plan to corne
back to the Commission.
Posusta stated that this sign was already approved. Posusta stated that bothl-Ioliday and
Wendy's could have there own 30' sign. They arc eliminating signs by doubling them up.
O'Neill clarified that this sign was not approved by the Commission and that it should be
reviewed in context of the whole PUD and all other signs on the site.
Dragsten agreed that it is important to 111ake sure the sign is consistent with whole PUD. Frie
asked if item is going to Council. O'Neill stated that the sign plan, and landscape plan are
first part of Commission's review. lIe noted that this sign is significantly bigger and higher
than what would be allowed. lIe inquired whether the Commission would be comfortable
recommending approval and passing the decision on to the Council without a cOll1plete plan.
.
Frie asked about what had been included in the submitted sign pacakge package. O'Neill
stated again that the sign presented tonight was not part of the original suhmission, nor was it
l8
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
part ofMr. Mielke's first PUD sign plan, which included another 57' sign in another area of
the site.
.
Patch also noted that the additional 57' sign previously approved for the Mielke portion of the
PUD had Conoco on it. DQ Grill and Chill wanted to erect the sign in place of the propsed
Conoco sign. That was acceptable, except that the sign application submitted for that 57'
pylon came in at twicc the face square footage as what was originally approved.
Mielkc offered a clarification, stating that the original PUD included his five parcels. This
plat adds two additional parcels. The original sign package proposed included the two 57'
pylons instead of 532' signs. By code, each parcel is allowcd a 32' pylon with 200' of
signage. In consideration, they'd also try to do more landscaping.
O'Neillnotcd that allowing another 57' elevation sign will continue to set a precedent. He
asked if the Commission allows it via the PUD, what is the benefit or trade-off. Posusta
commented that this seems to present less clutter and confusion. Frie stated that the purpose
is to be seen from the interstate and it was approved for that rationale. Frie commented that it
seems that Commission discussed the sign ordinance based on distance from the freeway
previously. O'Neill cited that the sign package should also incorporate other site signage
including wall signs, monument signs, etc.
Mielke stated that the reason for the 57' is that it conforms with all the other signs in the area.
O'Neill stated that in that case, Commission has an issue of changing the code. Posusta
stated that this sign is already there, they just want to change the face. Posusta stated that the
City shouldn't be holding these people hostage over a sign. O'Neill referred to Division
Street in St. Cloud as an example of sign proliferation.
.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Conceptually, Frie stated that he Commission supports the project, but the fact is that the
applicant has not submitted a detailed signage plan, which is 1110re than just the pylon sign in
question. If Commission could receive that, this whole paekage could move forward to
Counci I.
IIilgart stated that he is not overly concerned with the sign issue, he is happy to have Council
and staff to look at it.
Drgatsen stated that it isn't that he doesn't want to see them move forward, he just wants to
see a comprehensive plan for the site.
Spartz and Suchy agreed that the sign plan should come back.
O'Neill asked if the Commission is perhaps receptive to a special meeting prior to the next
Council meeting. Commission agreed, as did the applicants.
Patch noted concern over utilization of the existing sign post. Frie made note and directed the
applicants to provide a detailed final plan.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE
MONTICELLO TRA VEL CENTER 2ND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAf, SUBJECT
TO TIlE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, STRIKING
CONDITIONS 3 AND 5 AS NOTED, AND BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS
19
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
CONSIST WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE
SUBJECT SITE.
The applicant submit revised plans meeting the conditions below, prior to final plat, lor
review and approval.
The Wendy's parking area must be revised to show at least a 5-foot setback from all lot lines.
Pmp0sea l3arbAg area designated as "future" ~;hall be constructed at the timo of G0RstrHeti0R
0ftHe Wendy's.
Any parking that is proposed to be within drainage and utility easements is constructed at the
owner's risk. Parking areas that arc damaged by the City in the event that access is needed to
the underlying utilities will be replaced at the owner's cost.
5. THe af3plieaHt~; should con~;ider the ali!;llmcnt ofthc in;;rcss/obrcss p0ints fer the H0liaay aRa
WeAdy's to be tlireetly across from one another to provide bettor circulatioFl aRa traffle flew,
sl:Ibjeet to the review and appnwal of the City Ensincor.
The applicant shall submit revised plans showing 5-foot sidewalks along the entire length of
the subject site on the south side of Oakwood Drive and the west side of Cedar Street.
The applicant shall provide details and/or exhibits which show that the proposed parking and
driveway areas allow for a turning radius for a semi trailer tractor truck.
The applicant mllst submit a revised landscape plan showing all landscaping for both the
Wendy's and Holiday site as recommended in the staff reported for September 6'\ 2005.
The applicant must submit a revised signage plan illustrating the sign package for the property
as a whole, including all parcels, and subject to the review of the Commission and/or staff as
directed by the Commission.
The applicant must submit plans showing the proposed locations and dimensions of any
outdoor storage and/or sales.
The applicant submit a complete lighting plan, with fixture notations, to be compliant with
regulations outlined in Section 3-2.H of the Zoning Ordinance. Lighting proposed for the gas
station canopy must be recessed lighting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT S'IAGE PUD TO ALLOW A DRIVE-IN CONVENIENCE FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT, MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE, CAR WASI-I,
JOINT PARKING AND DRIVES, OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AND A RETAIL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO REVIEW OF A COMPLETE SIGN
PLAN, AND WITH THE COMMENTS LISTED TN EXHIBIT Z, AS NOTED ABOVE,
STRIKING CONDITIONS 3 AND 5. TIIJS RECOMMENOATION BASED UPON THE
FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE
AREA.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 i\ 2005.
20
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a retluest for Conditional Use Permit for a 896 square foot
detached accessorv structure and a Variance for second drivewav access and curb open ing in
an R-1 Zonin€!: Distriet. Applicant: Richard l3astien Central Masonrv & Concrete
O'Neill provided the staff report, noting the site's location between River Street and Sandy
Lane. O'Neill reported that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to build a
detached accessory structure. He stated that the applicant is also seeking a variance to allow
a second curb cut and driveway entrance to service that garage.
O'Neill noted that there are other areas, such as Schooll3oulevard, where a driveway request
on a double-fronting lot would not be allowed under any circumstances. Sandy Lane is a
more quiet street with less traffic. O'Neill stated that allowing a second access wouldn't
necessarily interrupt traffic flow. The question in this circumstance is whether the property
owner can get aecess to the proposed garage, the front driveway. O'Neill noted that this is a
pretty tight property line. O'Neill stated that other items, including setbacks, need to be
verified. For exanlple, if a second driveway is allowed, it effectively creates a second front,
and in that situation, would the applicant need the full setback of30 feet. O'Neill noted that
for an accessory structure on a non-double-fronting lot, the setback is 12' or 6'. O'Neill
referred to site images, posing the question to the Commission on whether there a difference
between a side road and collector road. O'Neill stated that there are also other situations
where second driveways have cropped up in the City.
.
Applicant Dick Bastien, 1112 West River Street, addressed the Commission. Bastien stated
that there are similar conditions existing in the City. As such, he stated that the Commission
really wouldn't be setting a precedent. Aesthetically, Bastien indicated that it would be
foolish not to allow a paved driveway. Bastien referred to site conditions, particularly that
the side yard property line would not allow vehicle access to the rear yard. Bastien expressed
appreciation to Commissioner Suchy for stopping by.
Frie stated that in order to justify a variance, by law the Commission has to establ ish a
hardship. l3astien stated that his truck will not fit into the existing garage.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing and asked if any residents wished to Conll11ent.
Hearing no comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Suchy noted the lot is unique in its arrangenlent as a double-fronting lot. Noting that this
request is to fit a vehicle he uses everyday, she suggested that the Commission look again at
garage sizes for new developments. Suchy noted that the area is landscaped well and noted
that there is no way he could maneuver around his house to get to garage.
Frie noted for the record that it is not a precedent setter in terms of second driveways already
in existence.
.
Dragsten stated he had been by the property. lIe questioned the side setback at R feet as
shown on the plan. O'Neill explained that there is no standard in the code specific for rear
yard garages ti.onting on a public street. O'Neill noted that in the case of most detached
garages, the owners are able to tuck it back into the yard. Here they arc backing up to the
21
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
strcct. Patch stated that with the two streets, there are essentially two fronts, which would
then require a 30 foot setbaek on both. Patch indicated that while we didn't notice
spccifically for this type of variance, it would be within the context of what was noticed.
Patch noted that on a corner lot, the sicle setback would normally be 20 feet. The idea is to
get parking out of thc street.
Bastien stated that from back ofthe curb to the face of buildings is 28 feet. Patch stated that
it appears from the drawing that the building itself is only 9 feet from property line. Bastien
commented on a discrepancy betwcen what hc was told by the Building Department and the
Planning and Zoning Department on this issue. Bastien indicated that he developed the
garage site on what building department told him.
Oragsten asked if the structure meets the amount of garage space allowed by ClIP. O'Neill
stated that the calculations came under the maximum of 1500 square feet.
Hilgart stated that he is a little confused about the setbacks. Patch explained that the setback
is measured from the property line, the curb isn't accurate for measuring setback. Patch
stated that the boulevard in a given area may be 22' wide, where normally the boulevard is
15'. Patch noted that a lancl survey is required prior to bui Icling perm it and determines the
accurate placcment of sctback lincs. The qucstion is, what is the applicablc setback. Hilgart
asked if the way the applicant's plan is drawn now, can hc get a pc I'm it. O'Neill stated that it
appears that he has less than 20' of setback. Patch commented that from thc diagram, it
appears it is only a 9' setback from the property line.
.
Basticn stated that he is agreeable to the 20' setback from the property line. Bastien stated
that according to the River Terrace plat, his lot measures I 00 by 200 feet. He stated that if
there is a discrepaney on what the setbaek should be, it's between thc two departments.
O'Neill noted that if someone doesn't know it's a double-fronting lot, or doesn't convey that
to thc person they're talking with, it's difficult to determine the accurate setback.
Patch commented on the survey, noting that a general question will get a general answer.
The survcy will provide an absolute answcr on where the property line is and where a normal
setback line is. Bastien stated that to refuse the request based on a wrong answer is
ridieulous.
Frie asked the applieant how anxious he is to move on this. Bastien stated that he doesn't
think he neecls a survey. He indicatecl that it should be cut and dried deal.
Posusta commented that the setback should be measured from the curb. Patch c1isagreed as
the actual placement of the curb is not reflective of a surveyed propelty line. Posusta asked
why th is c1idn't have a survey if it needed one. Patch agreed that it should have had a survey
and stated that he and other staff had asked previously for a survey to be a required part of
any application process, but most certainly in a variance request. Frie asked for the item be
put on a future agenda.
Frie stated that it seems logical that the applicant wouldn't request a setback where his truck
was hanging out into the street.
Posusta noted that two driveways would require two assessments. Frie askecl if Bastien is
COlllfortable with this. Bastien agreed.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 11lE CUP,
WITH A SIDEY ARD SETBACK OF A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET, WITH THE
22
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
CONDITION THAT THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS AND
COLORS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING, AND THAT THE
BUILDINCi IS CONSTRUCTED TO FACE SANDY LANE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
Spartz stated that he is not comfortable with that setback, but does consider the request to
present a hardship. Spartz indicated that the Commission needs to be eareful as to where we
allow him to place it. Frie stated he is comfortable with the 20' setback. Spartz stated he is
not. hie asked what he comfortable with. Spartz stated he doesn't know without more
information.
MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
Patch noted that a survey is automatically required as part of building permit.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH
DRlvEWA Y FACING SANDY LANE AND A SETBACK OF 20 FEET, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN A HARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE
PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE AND REQUIRES THE VARIANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN.
MOTION CARRIED 4-], WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
.
13. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance regarding the regulation and outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.
Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Patch presented the staff report for the item, stating that a similar amendnlent was considered
in 2000. Currently, the ordinance only regulates vehicles over a specified gross weight. In
2000, staff suggested an ordinance change that would classify comlnercial vehicles based on
a sticker on a license plate. At that time, the Planning Commission agreed on the basis of
preserving the residential character of neighborhoods. However, the Council struggled with
the proposed amendment and tabled it.
Patch repol1ed that currently, there are approximately 37 commercial vehicle violations or
undefined uses in residential areas. He stated that a specific case on Hillcrest Circle has
brought forward the amendment. The City Attorney has crafted an ordinance that specifically
addresses commercial vehicles and racecars. Patch noted that the proposed ordinance
amendment first defines commercial vehicles and racecars in terms of description, length and
height. The attorney also reviewed licensed and operable vehicle definitions, including non-
street legal vehicles.
Patch stated that as noted in the report, staff recommends adoption of the amendment.
Chairman hie opened the public hearing.
.
Lee McDougal, 101 Hillcrest Circle, addressed the Commission and asked who wrote the
ordinance amendnlent. Patch stated that the City Attorney had drafted the proposed
amendment. McDougal asked how a racecar is not a recreational vehicle. Carrie McDougal,
stated that she had called the State, Sheriffs Office, and Department of Motor Vehicles to
23
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
find out how to license a racecar. In cvery case, it is classified as a recrcational vehicle.
McDougal stated that he can put tabs and lights on the car and it will be street legal, but
stated that he doesn't want to. Frie asked if McDougal's concern is over the definition.
McDougal stated that banning racecars from the city is unfair. Carrie McDougal indicated
that there are about 80 other racecars in the city currently.
Frie commented that it is his understanding that the issue had come forward because a
ncighbor is trying to sell her home, but has received negative fecdback because of a semi and
racecar parked in the neighborhood. Frie asked if the MeDougal's racecar could be put in thc
garage. The McDougals agreed that it could be. Frie re-stated for the record that the car
could be kept in the garage.
Frie asked Patch if commercial yehicles or racecars were taken into account in the proposed
outdoor storage amendment. Patch explained that the current outdoor storage amendment
addresses only industrial areas. Frie noted that the Commission had tried to address the
storage issue in allowing larger accessory structures. Frie asked McDougal where the car is
stored in the winter. McDougal responded that it is covered with a tarp in thc rear yard
during the winter and is screened by a garden shed.
.
Posusta asked how demolition derby cars would be affected. Posusta suggested they be
added, because obviously what one race car looks like is different from another. Patch stated
that the definition of licensed and operable extends beyond racecars to public nuisance. It
works together in prohibiting a demolition vehicle that is not licensed. Patch also noted that
moving a vehicle in a back yard for storage is not legal, as they nee to be parked on had
surfaces. Posusta stated that he thinks the ordinance amendment should be more specific.
Patch stated that the demolition vehicles would be includcd within the definition as presented,
but could include a laundry list which statcs "included but not limited to".
Carrie McDougal stated that "inoperable vehicle", to her is something that doesn't move, but
their racecar is something that just needs lights and a license. She restated her belief that it is
a recreational vchicle. She indicated that ifthe vehicle is on a licensed and insured trailer,
there's nothing the sheriff can do. McDougal pointed out that there are large businesses in
town that sponsor cars.
Posusta stated that isn't what the ordinance is trying to eliminate. It is simply stating that
they don't belong in a residential area. Posusta stated that there are appropriatc places for
each use.
Jessica Bechtold, 103 Hillcrest Circle, spoke to the Commission. Bechtold indicated that her
husband drives a semi. She commented that whcn hc comes home, it's no longer commercial
vehiclc, it's residential. She inquired why ifthc DOT says it's not hurting the roads, why
can't he drive it home. Bechtold stated that it is her opinion that this ordinance amendment
was started because of the way something looks.
Beth Larson, ] 702 West River Street, indicated to the Commission that her husband drivcs a
dump truck. By not allowing him to drive his work vehicle honle, they are rcquiring
unnecessary driving back and flwth by the owner of the vehicles.
Bechtold noted that the trucks are licensed, operable and insured.
.
Paulette Conroy, Aetna A venue NE, addressed the Commission. Conroy stated that although
she and her husband now I ive in thc township, they still have a home in Monticello. Conroy
stated that she wcnt to her neighbors with the realtor's comments, who had told hcr that they
24
.
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
had three potential sales lost due these issues. Conroy stated that she had asked the neighbors
to work with them on this. She noted that the realtors had indicated that when you buy a
house, you buy a neighborhood. Conroy noted that there is only one race car, but it really
doesn't look like the picture presented by the McDougals. Conroy asked the Commission to
consider the amendment and to think about the development of residential character. She
noted that Monticello is in competition with other cities for residents and asked the
Commission to consider what the City wants neighborhoods to look like.
Bechtold indicated that she had spoken to the Conroy's realtor, who had stated that the house
wasn't selling because the house was priced too high.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart commented that he didn't think commercial vehicles add to the ambience of
neighborhoods. He noted that the race car could be stored in the garage. Hilgart stated that
he is in favor of the ordinance.
Dragsten commented on the look of neighborhoods and concerns for safety in terms of large
commercial vehicles. Dragsten noted that he does development in other communities where
this kind of ordinance is commonplace.
Spartz stated that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He suggested that the ordinance might
say if a vehicle isn't I icensed properly, it shouldn't be on the streets. Patch confirmed that
ordinance is already in place, but that racecars fell into a gray area.
.
Suchy stated that in residential areas, large commercia] vehicles arc a huge concern. Suchy
stated she is concerned about the way neighborhoods looks in relationship to this ordinance.
Suchy addressed the residents who commented, stating that she doesn't think this ordinance
is picking you out specifically. Suchy stated that she thinks there is a bigger problem in
Monticello and that the Commission should move forward. She agreed that these types of
vehicles belong in storage.
Bechtold began to comment, but was informed by Chariman Frie that no further public
comments would be taken, as the public hearing was closed.
Frie stated that having this ordinance on the record will create prevention. Ifthis ordinance
were in place bef()re, the issues addressed during the public hcaring wouldn't be present. Frie
inquired if this ordinance goes into effect, is the character of neighborhoods compromised by
existing non-conforming uses via grand-fathering. Frie noted that he totally support the
ordinance and further stated his opposition to some ofthe large campers and motorhomes
kept in residential areas.
Patch stated that staffwill need to speak with the City attorney related to the question of
grandfathering rights. He stated that Grittman had indicated these types of uses would not be
grandfathered in. However, the City and County Attorney would necd to provide opinion on
these items.
Fric asked those who addressed the Commission to research their own cases individually.
.
Patch raised the issue of what this does to business uses. For example, if someone operates a
husiness use out of their home, the use can be allowable to a certain point as long as the use
doesn't intensify. It can continue as an existing non-contl1rming use.
25
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
.
Posusta has problem with the grandfathering logic. He noted that the City just approved a
peddler ordinance, under which grandfathering isn't allowed. He noted that this issue had
also come up in 2000.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ RECOMMEND THAT TIlE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2, 3, AND 6 OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING REGULAfIONS FOR RACE
CARS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Frie requested that item 16 be moved for consideration as item 14.
14. Consideration to review for approval the Monticello Highlands landscape plan.
Applicant: L & G, LLC
O'Neill introduced the item, noting that a new plan will be presented by the applicant. He
noted that staff have not had an opportunity to review the plan.
.
Skip Sorenson, project architect, presented the Emerald Heights (formerly Monticello
Highlands) landscape plan and described the proposed townhome development. Sorenson
indicated that they will lnaking sure that the retaining walls are adequately landscaped on
both walls litts. Sorcnson explained that a 42" high fence will be erected on the top of each
retaining wall. The site landscaping will also include 57 overstory trees, which will be
oversized trees and coniferous trees in the back yards. All landscaping will be irrigated.
Sorenson also presented a visual image ofthe hill after development of the homes and walls.
Frie asked how they will difterentiate the cost bctween units. Sorcnson responded that the
cost will be based on the amenities, floor plan and size. Frie asked if the developers would
make the Councillneeting on Monday. Sorenson stated they would not be going to Council
on the 121h. Sorenson also noted that they wOldd be holding a public input session. Frie
asked if they would break ground this fall. Sorenson stated that they hope to.
15. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for alnendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance relating to the regulation of pvlon signage. Apnlicant: City of Monticello
In light ofthe length ofthe meeting, Patch and O'Neill recommended continuation ot the
signage item to the October meeting of the Commission.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
MOTION 13Y COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING A REQUEST POR AMENDMENT '1'0 THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF PYLON SIGNAGE.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCI IY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
26
Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05
.
16. Consideration to review for conformance to ori?inal preliminary plat approval the
preliminary and final plat ofthe Gould Addition.
O'Neill stated that this is a housekeeping item, which allows an extension for the preliminary
plat approval in order for the applicants to final plat. It is a non-controversial item that will
allow the applicant to move forward with recording of their plat.
No comments were made by the Commissioners.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO EXTEND THE APPROV AL OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE GOULD ADDITION FOR 1 ADDITIONAL YEAR,
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PRESENTED FINAL PLAT CONSISTENT WITH
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSI S.
17. Adiourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT II :45 PM BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
.
.
27