Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/2024 (Joint Workshop)MINUTES
JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Monday, July 2, 2024 — 5:00 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck,
Planning Commissioners Absent:
City Councilmembers Present:
Councilmembers Absent:
Staff Present:
1. Call to Order
Rob Stark
Chair Paul Konsor
Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie
Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Rachel Leonard,
Jennifer Schreiber, Sarah Rathlisberger, Jim Thares,
Hayden Stensgard
Planning Commission Vice Chair Andrew Tapper called the joint workshop meeting of
the Monticello Planning Commission and City Council to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Concept Plan Submittal for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for
Machinery/Truck Repair and Sales as a Principal Use on parcels zoned Industrial &
Business Campus District (IBC) and guided Light Industrial Park (LIP)
PIDs: 155-248-001020, 155-248-001030
Legal Description: Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Otter Creek Crossing 6t" Addition
Applicant: GEN II, LLC. (Jonathan W. Shilling)
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the
purpose of the meeting to the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. The
Pointes at Cedar District Zoning Ordinance allows applicants to have a joint concept
meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council, without requiring a decision
from the City Council regarding the development. Similar to the Planned Unit
Development Concept Stage process, the joint workshop step provides an opportunity
to the Planning Commission and City Council to give initial feedback on a development
proposal without having to make a formal decision. While not a public hearing, mailed
notice did go out to the surrounding property owners, and if time allows, members of
the public may provide comment.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the public.
Mr. Grittman explained that the subject site is guided as Light Industrial Park and zoned
Industrial Business Campus; these generally support light industrial and general
warehousing uses. Both place significant focus on indoor manufacturing work and less
focus on outdoor storage activities.
Mr. Grittman stated that the proposed use is Machinery/Truck Sales and Repair, which is
accommodated in the 1-2 District rather than the 1-1 or IBC Districts. The proposer is
suggesting that they will mitigate conflicts between the light and heavy industrial districts
for their proposed use. Mr. Grittman briefly reviewed the size and site details, noting the
extent of the unpaved areas on the site and their intended purpose. staging and display for
sales.
Mr. Grittman outlined staff comments for Planning Commission and Council review. Given
the proposed use and site plan, the expectation of staff is that the building itself should be
construced of high quality building materials and architecture consistent with the IBC
requirements. Further, staff would recommend that the site plan be revised to include
paved display along Chelsea Road and in other circulation and access areas. Staff also
recommends that the Planning Commission and Council provide specific direction on the
amount and type of pavement and surfacing, as well as the proposed extent of outdoor
storage and display.
Jon Shilling and Matt Kern addressed the Commission as representatives of General
Equipment. They presented information on their company, including its history and values.
The presentation included images and information on their other building locations. They
noted that this site would be a flagship location for their business.
Angela Schumann introduced the Mayor's comments, provided before the meeting. Mayor
Hilgart had expressed that the Planning Commission and Council members should consider
whether the proposed use is the highest and best use of the property given its prime
interstate location and IBC zoning. The creation of jobs and building tax base are a priority
for the district. His stated expectation is that the building should be of sufficent size and
building materials quality to meet the zoning standards at minimum. He also indicated an
interest in seeing additional concrete or other paved surfacing on the site, limiting outdoor
storage and requiring full screening of storage areas.
Commission Tapper inquired about plans for the expansion area. The proposer confirmed
that the site's size offers room for expansion. Potenital for expansion is the rationale for
where the building is located on the southeast side of the site. Commissioner Tapper also
clarified the materials proposed for the surfaced areas. Developer noted that given the
nature of their equipment, they will use 10 inches of concrete in surfaced areas and prefer
to maintain display areas with crushed asphalt or granite.
Commissioner Tapper also inquired as to the intent for the staging area. The developer
responded that it is used when equipment is brought in and given the location, allows for
screening by existing vegetation.
Commissioner Tapper noted the tree coverage in the area and suggested that there is
enough space on the site to avoid disturbing that area.
Commissioner Lehner inquired as to the business hours. Developer response was that
hours are generally 7AM-5PM, but they do have some variation depending on the
community. The only time outside of that is on-call parts.
Councilmember Murdoff inquired about the building position on the site. The developer
indicated that the position is intended to be able to support future expansion, circulation on
site and to utilize the existing screening and to address the access point spacing location.
Developer also responded that the display would shield equipment being readied for shop
repair.
Commission Tapper asked for the number of employees on site. The developer responded
that they would expect an employee count of approximately 45, with sales, parts and repair
personnel. They noted that their Fargo site has 110 employees.
Councilmember Gabler inquired whether they would utilize fencing for the site. The
developer indicated that they would prefer to use natural screening and gates at access
drive locations. She also inquited about the expected site signage. Developer wishes to
brand General Equipment on interstate side and would seek to have both General
Equipment and their product lines identified on the building, plus a monument on Chelsea.
Councilmember Gabler inquired of staff regarding plans for additional industrial land added
to inventory. Ms. Schumann responded that EDA has not to date directed addition land
area for acquisition planning. Commissioner Gabler also inquired about the potential for
interchange at the County Road 39 West location. Schumann responded that the 2040 Plan
identifies the interchange at County Road 120. It does not identify an interchange at this
location.
Commissioner Lehner inquired whether the sales aspect would generate volume of visits to
the site. The developer indicated that there is not a high volume of sales traffic daily, but
events can draw a number of visits, although events would be limited.
Councilmember Murdoff indicated that this is a similar use to Nuss Equipment and would
expect this site to be used similarly to Nuss Equipment. He stated that he would prefer a
slightly larger building. His recommendation was that the site be under 20% of aggregate
surface with a a well -kept display area. He stated that he had no issue with the use if those
parameters are met.
Commissioner Tapper inquired about the height of the shop building. Developer responded
that the height is 40'. The developer noted that they are purchasing more than they need
given the size of the lots. In the office area, they would likely have two floors, essentially
doubling the office space from 6,000 to 12,000 square feet.
No other comments were provided from Council or Commission members.
Jim and Dorothy Schillewart, residents at 3174 County Road 39 NE addressed the workshop
members. They indicated that their primary concern is the buffer of existing trees and
vegetation. They understand the intent is to keep this vegetation and that would be their
preference. The developer stated they understand the concern. Commissioner Tapper
noted that any expansion into that area would trigger an amendment to the PUD and then
would likely see a recommendation for additional screening. Developer indicated that they
would try to anticipate expansion and consider additional planting prior.
No action was taken on the item.
3. Adjournment
By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Recorded By: Angela Schumann
Date Approved: August 6, 2024
ATTEST:
AWa Sch�Wnn,1Communify Development Director