Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 10/03/2023MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 — 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Robeck
Commissioners Absent: Eric Hagen
Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden
Stensgard
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Mr. Konsor called the roll.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None
D. Approval of A, e� nda
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 3, 2023 PLANNING
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes —September 5, 2023
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
F. Citizen Comment
None
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structures
Exceeding 1,200 Square Feet in the R-2, Single & Two -Family Residential District.
Applicant: Linn D. Jenson
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the
Planning Commission and the public. For the two-family home located at 212 Kevin
Longley Drive, the applicant is requesting to expand the existing attached garage
area for one of the two units. The total amount of accessory structure space existing
and proposed would exceed 1,200 square feet, which required the applicant to
receive a conditional use permit. The proposed addition is 20'x20', and the site
garage expansion would not exceed a total of 1,500 square feet, eliminating the
need for a variance request. Staff's recommendation of the item was for approval,
and Mr. Grittman detailed the conditions of approval as found in Exhibit Z of the
agenda item.
Andrew Tapper asked for clarification that the proposed addition would be attached
to the home. Mr. Grittman stated that the applicants had informed staff that it
would be attached, and that there would be no internal access to the garage.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-28
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 1,200 SQUARE FEET ON AN R-2, SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
B. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structures
Exceeding 1,200 Square Feet in the R-1, Single -Family Residential District.
Applicant: Chip Bauer Construction, Inc.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the
Planning Commission and the public. For the single-family home located at 2471
Eastwood Lane, the applicant is requesting an addition to the attached garage that
would exceed 1,200 square feet of total garage space. The proposed addition would
not exceed 1,500 square feet in total. Staff's recommendation of the item was for
approval, and Mr. Grittman detailed the conditions of that approval found in Exhibit
Z of the agenda item.
Melissa Robeck stated that it was her intention to abstain from the vote on this
item.
Mr. Konsor asked if there was planned to be any living space, including bonus room
above the proposed garage addition within the proposed addition. Mr. Grittman
deferred to the applicant to answer that question.
Mr. Tapper asked for clarification on the expansion of the driveway on site. Mr.
Grittman noted that the applicants could expand the driveway if desired, staff
wanted to make the note that there are standards that need to be followed with
that, including an application for a driveway permit.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Chip Bauer, Applicant, stated that there is no living space planned with the proposed
addition, the area above the ceiling would be cold storage.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-29 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
EXCEEDING 1,200 SQUARE FEET ON AN R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0,
COMMISSIONER ROBECK ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE.
C. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, including Section 153.067 — Off -Street Parking,
related to Parking Area Surfacing Materials; Section 153.068 — Off -Street Loading
Spaces, related to Surfacing Materials; Section 153.070 — Building Materials{
related to 1-2, Heavy Industrial District Building Materials and Finishing Standards;
Section 153.092 — Accessory Use Standards, related to Accessory Use Outdoor
Storage Standards.
Applicant: Tim Flander/Big Bear Holdings, LLC.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the
Planning Commission and the public. The applicant is requesting various
amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, mainly related to building and site
design standards within the 1-2, Heavy Industrial District. These amendments were
related to exterior building finish, surfacing material of both loading areas, outdoor
storage areas, and parking areas, and increasing the amount of outdoor storage
allowed within the 1-2 District. Staff's recommendation was for denial of the
proposed amendments, as they were found to be inconsistent with the goals and
direction defined in the City comprehensive plan (Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan).
Mr. Tapper addressed the applicant referencing the building style of an adjacent
property and asked if that building was currently conforming with the City's Zoning
Ordinance standards. Community Development Director Angela Schumann said no,
and clarified that the existing building in question was built to conform with prior
zoning standards.
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler referenced the discussion when the recent
industrial building design standard amendments were approved, and that staff and
City officials worked hard to draft to comfortable language for proceeding within
these districts. On the question of additional outdoor storage, concerns were raised
and discussed by the City's Industrial & Economic Development Committee (IEDC),
and that group was comfortable establishing this limitation.
Teri Lehner discussed the difficulty in recommending approval for the proposed
amendments, as they would not only affect the development of the applicant's site,
but also entire districts as applicable.
Mr. Konsor asked for clarification on where within the City would these proposed
amendments be applied to. Mr. Grittman clarified that the majority of the changes
would apply to land zoned 1-2, Heavy Industrial District, with the exception of the
parking area surfacing amendment, that would apply to all zoning districts.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Applicant Tim Flander, 9450 Nason Court, Otsego, MN 55330, addressed the
Planning Commission. Mr. Flander said that the requests were partially related to
the limited availability of site within the Oakwood Industrial Park, and the existing
site designs of surrounding properties, as there are sites recently developed that no
longer comply with the current ordinance standards. Mr. Flander mentioned that it
was not his intention to change the code itself, but rather requesting flexibility from
these standards for the development of his site. Regarding the concern of maximum
opportunity tax base as directed by the City's comprehensive plan, the cost saving
these flexibilities would provide, would allow an immediate addition of building
space on site following the initial development.
Mr. Tapper asked the applicant to clarify whether it was his intention to amend the
Zoning Ordinance in its entirety, rather than having his requests apply to only his
property. Mr. Flander stated that it was not his intention to have these changes be
reflected across the City of Monticello.
Ms. Schumann clarified that the applicant does have the opportunity to request
variances from these standards, or pursue the Planned Unit Development option. A
variance request would require the applicant to demonstrate some sort of practical
difficulty related to developing the site within the current zoning standards.
Mr. Tapper asked if the Planned Unit Development route seemed like a relevant
path, given the applicant's current requests. Mr. Grittman clarified that it could be a
possibility, though typically a request for flexibility from standards by way of a PUD
usually is accompanied with enhancements of some sorts elsewhere on a given site.
Mr. Tapper then stated that it would be best to proceed with denial of these
proposed ordinance text amendments and allow the applicant to pursue these
requests through a different type of Land Use application.
Mr. Grittman stated that when the applicant brought forth their goals for developing
the site in such a way, staff reviewed these alternative options (variance or PUD
applications) and found that it would be unlikely for staff to justify approving a
request as such, given that practical difficulties on an undeveloped site are difficult
to determine. Regardless of the way the vacant site is to be developed, the City's
policies, as well as the goals and direction established within the comprehensive
plan still apply. Mr. Grittman stated it would be beneficial for the applicant to have
an understanding at this meeting of the likelihood of one of those alternative routes
being successful in getting approved.
Mr. Tapper agreed and further stated that the likelihood of all the applicant's
requests being approved in some form was unlikely, some would be worth further
discussion.
Ms. Schumann noted that the City does have financial assistance programs related
to site development and that Economic Development Manager at the City would be
willing to explore those opportunities with the applicant.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-30
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, BASED ON FINDINGS
IN THE RESOLUTION AND ANY ADDITIONAL FINDINGS MADE BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
D. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Cross/Joint Parking
Easement in the Riverfront Sub -District of the Central Community District (CCD).
Applicant: City of Monticello
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public. In connection with the downtown streetscape
improvements, the Planning Commission was asked to consider a second CUP for a
cross/joint parking easement on Block 51, directly west of the Block 52
redevelopment project. The need for the easement is because one of the sites
controls access to where the proposed six additional spaces will be located. It was
noted that with the execution of the cross/joint parking easement, these newly
established parking spaces will be open for public use.
Mr. Konsor asked if the signs to be installed on site to denote public parking will also
include exclusive parking for businesses in the area. Ms. Schumann clarified that the
only parking exceptions in this area would be related to ensuring the residential
tenants of these buildings have overnight access to parking there.
Mr. Tapper asked if the smaller shed on site is proposed to go away, while the larger
garage is expected to stay. Ms. Schumann confirmed.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Erika Fisher, 109 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362, noted that there is no
concern regarding people walking on the grass of her property and that the
proposed parking area will benefit customer access to her business, as well as
provide her residential tenant and more secure parking situation within the vicinity.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-31
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS/JOINT
PARKING WITHIN BLOCK 511 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED
ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 7-0.
E. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usages
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.012 — Definitions, as related to Public
Building and Uses and Includiniz Community Event Center.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission
and the public. This item stemmed from a discussion of being able to better utilize
the Monticello Community Center's commercial kitchen for private use. The
proposed use of the commercial kitchens does not fall outside the existing uses
within the community center currently, but it was decided that with this use
becoming active, it is in the City's interests to establish a definition for "Community
Center" within the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Robeck asked if this was essentially a way to establish a definition for the use,
and allow better utilization of areas of the Monticello Community Center. Mr.
Grittman confirmed.
Mr. Tapper asked about how renting the space will be managed. Ms. Schumann
clarified that the Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission will be overseeing the
renting of the various spaces.
Mr. Konsor asked if the list of example uses is too exclusive and over -limits the
utilization of these spaces. Mr. Grittman clarified that keeping the inclusion area of
the definition broad to things such as "public assembly", rather than listing out
specifics within that use, allows enough flexibility, but at the same time, it's
important to be somewhat limiting so that every use does not have the opportunity
to rent community center space.
Councilmember Gabler asked if places like the proposed new public works facility
that has a large meeting space would fall within this definition, to allow for renting
out of that space. Ms. Schumann stated that specific to the proposed public works
facility, the property would be zoned Planned Unit Development, so within that
established zoning district, this could be addressed there.
Mr. Tapper asked if the list of example uses are exclusive for Community Centers,
and whether it should read, "may include the following" to allow for flexibility in the
types of uses in those spaces. Mr. Grittman noted that is a revision to this definition
that will be revised prior to adoption of the ordinance.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-32
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR
DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND USES BASED ON FINDINGS IN
SAID RESOLUTION WITH THE ADDITION OF "MAY INCLUDE" AS NOTED. TERI LEHNER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
F. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.060 — Landscaping and Screening, for
Standards Relating to Native Landscapes.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public. The proposed ordinance amendment would address the
recently adopted law at the state level, allowing managed natural landscapes on
residential properties. The current City ordinance on natural landscapes allows them
only within commercial, industrial, and civic zoning districts. For residents who are
interested in converting some or all their lawn into a managed native landscape,
they will be required to submit a plan to the Community Development Department,
to verify code and statutory requirements. Staff's recommendation was for approval
of this agenda item.
Councilmember Gabler asked if the approval of a proposed landscape plan would be
by way of a permit. Per the recent statute, Ms. Schumann said that the City will not
be approving these through a permitting process and that a neighbor's permission
cannot be required. She further clarified that natural landscapes cannot be
overgrown turf grass. Submission of a plan to the City is required prior to installing
the landscape. Education has already begun from City Staff to the public.
Ms. Lehner asked if there is potential for signage on City -maintained native
landscapes explaining what it is. Ms. Schumann said yes, and that the Parks &
Recreation Director recommended using signage to allow for these landscapes to be
recognizable as people walk or drive by them.
Mr. Tapper asked if the City is anticipating a need for residents to burn their natural
landscapes to maintain its health. Ms. Schumann said no, and that is why a meeting
with staff prior to preparation and installation will be important to steer away from
plantings that require a burn.
Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2023-33 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND USAGE,
CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 153.060 — LANDSCAPING AND
SCREENING, FOR STANDARDS RELATING TO NATIVE LANDSCAPES, INCLUDING
DEFINITIONS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Tabled— Consideration of a Request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for a 150-unit Multi -Family Residential Building in the B-3{
Highway Business District and Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business District to
Great River PUD District.
Applicant: Briggs Companies
Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the tabled agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public. Originally an agenda item at the Planning Commission's
September regular meeting, at the time staff believed there was not enough
information related to the development itself to proceed. At that September
meeting, the proposed plat, Great River 2nd Addition, was recommended for
approval and had since been approved by the City Council.
Since then, the applicants have revised their submitted material and supplied
enough information for the Planning Commission to review and consider in October.
The 150-unit multi -family building would be constructed on the southeast corner of
7t" Street East and Elm Street in two phases. Included in the proposed development
is a set of detached garages of various sizes, to accommodate tenants that would
need more storage space as necessary. Staff's recommendation on this item was for
approval, and Mr. Grittman detailed the conditions of approval found in Exhibit Z of
the agenda item.
Mr. Tapper asked for clarification on whether there would be a commercial aspect
to the development, as one of the example pictures provided by the applicant shows
retail space on the first level. Mr. Grittman clarified that the image provided was
merely an example of what the exterior of the building would look like, and that
there are no plans for commercial space within this proposal.
Mr. Grittman clarified that the applicant had submitted revised plans prior to the
meeting, staff had not reviewed them, but they are anticipated to address the
comments of the October staff report.
Mr. Konsor asked how snow removal will work on this site. Mr. Grittman said that
there are areas on site for piling snow, and it should not require parking space area.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-26
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, GREAT RIVER 2ND ADDITION, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z.
PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-27
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND
REZONING FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS TO THE GREAT RIVER PUD DISTRICT FOR
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, GREAT RIVER 2ND ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
B. Consideration of Adopting Resolution PC-2023-34, Finding the Proposed
Acquisition of Certain Land by the City of Monticello Economic Development
Authority is Consistent with the City of Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
(Comprehensive Plan).
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public. The property is .25 acres located at the northeast corner
of Highway 25 and 3rd Street East near downtown. The EDA's purchase of this
property continues the efforts of eventually redeveloping Block 34, the block just
south of Walgreens. The redevelopment of Block 34 is specifically identified in the
C..
Downtown Small Area Plan, which was adopted as part of the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan. The property is currently occupied by a commercial building and a
business tenant that will move its operation off the property if the EDA purchases it.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2023-24 FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND, LOT 1, BLOCK 34, ORIGINAL PLAT OF
MONTICELLO, PID 155010034010, BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN). TERI LEHNER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
4. Other Business
A. Planniniz Commission Terms
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public. This item was originally brought forth by Commission
Chair Paul Konsor and knowing that he would be absent for some meetings early in
2024. It was Mr. Konsor's wish for the Planning Commission to weigh that
information and decide what the best way to proceed. The options discussed had
included finding a replacement or retaining his appointment on the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Konsor reiterated that he wanted the rest of Planning Commission to be aware
of his scheduling situation, and for them to make an impartial decision on the future
of his role with the commission.
After discussion, it was the Planning Commission's interest to keep Mr. Konsor on
the Commission, but consider appointment of a new chairperson next January.
No action was taken on this agenda item.
B. Community Development Director's Report
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public.
No action was taken on this agenda item.
S. Adiournment
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 3, 2023 REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M.
Recorded By: Hayden Stensgard
Date Approved: November 6, 2023
ATTEST:
Angela Schum , C mmunity Development Director