Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/2024MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 21 2024 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark Commissioners Absent: Chair Paul Konsor Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Vice Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper called the roll, noting the absence of Chair Konsor. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None. D. Approval of Agenda MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 7, 2024 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. E. Approval of Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes—June 4, 2024 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 41 2024. MOTION SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. F. Citizen Comments None. 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Reauest for Preliminary Plat of Broadwav Plaza: Development Stain Planned Unit Development; Rezoning to Planned Unit Development for a Commercial Development including Commercial Lodging, Event Center, and Restaurant as Principal Uses Applicant: Mike Schneider City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the agenda item for the Planning Commission and public. Mr. Grittman explained the request is for a mixed-use commercial planned unit development. It was reviewed previously for comment in concept PUD workshop. The proposal is for a hotel, restaurant and conference center on the east side and on the east side, a small museum for regional agricultural and vehicles. Mr. Grittman noted there are some discrepancies between the Beacon online parcel lines and the survey of property lines. The property is guided for Employment Campus, which includes business industrial uses, as well as supporting hospitality uses. While event centers are not specifically permitted in the companion IBC zoning district, it is supportable with this mix. The three applications for review are platting of the property, development stage PUD approval, and the rezoning of the site to PUD. He noted Planning Commission is a recommending body for those considerations. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site in more detail, explaining that the preliminary plat will need to be corrected to match the proposed site plan for lot layout. Mr. Grittman further reviewed the three access points to the site via Broadway Street. Mr. Grittman noted that one of the conditions is to relocate one of the driveways to align better with the site plan and discourage traffic from Meadow Oak Avenue. The parking for the property at approximately 330 spaces is sufficient as proposed given the likely cross-over use on the site. It total, it is about a 20% reduction from the total that would be required if calculating the uses on their own. The uses also peak at different times. Mr. Grittman reviewed the conditions of approval. He noted that the site will require annexation as a condition of approval; the property is within the orderly annexation area. This is required to effect the zoning approvals. Annexation will occur with the final stage approvals. He stated that no final approvals will be granted until the wetland permits are issued for the site. If the wetland is not able to be mitigated, the applicant will need to redesign the site. A condition is included that the project is a single-phase development such that permits for all structures on Lots 1 and 2 would be issued together. The uses shown on the site plan will become part of the PUD approval as a condition of the approval. Mr. Grittman explained that one of the conditions of approval will be that the applicant supply additional detail on the museum portion of the project. Building plans and some narrative have been provided, but additional civil plans are required. It is further recommended that with any change in use, the existing building on Lot 1 would be required to come into compliance with current city building materials requirements. No outdoor storage will be allowed within the PUD and the landscaping plan will require additional planting along the interstate side of the site and screen the trash enclosure. A signage plan is required as a conditional of approval complaint with code as the applicant has not requested any variation from code. A sidewalk along Broadway or the site is required along the extent of the property. Finally, a development contract and cross -easement for parking are required. Commissioner Tapper confirmed that the Planning Commission will only see this project with this set of approvals. He inquired whether the applicant had provided building elevations. Staff confirmed that the applicant had provided elevations, but these were inadvertently missing from the agenda packet. Staff distributed the building elevations 2 for the site buildings at the meeting. Schumann noted that they will be added to the agenda on the website as well. Commissioner Robeck inquired about the wetland and whether the City should encourage preservation of the feature. Planner Grittman described the wetland review and permitting process and noted that various jurisdictions make up a technical review panel for the permit process. The burden is on the applicant to provide warrant for mitigation versus retention. If mitigation is approved, there is a process for replacement. The first order of business is always to try to preserve wetlands when they can do so. Vice Chair Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Tamara Reimer, 2861 Red Oak Circle addressed the Commission. She explained that she has concerns about the hotel traffic. She stated that the west side of her home is on Meadow Oak Lane. She stated that the proposal would be a better fit somewhere else in the community as there is not other supporting business in the area. She noted the access is on Broadway or Meadow Oak Avenue creating traffic and a concern for pedestrians in the area. She asked the Commission to consider their position if this was proposed in their neighborhood. The dog park also creates concern. She also inquired about access to 1-94 and managing traffic and speed. She also explained that she is concerned about increased crime and property values. Ms. Reimer inquired about the notice process and area for the public hearing notice. Mike Schneider, developer, addressed the Commission. He noted that there is not often a proposal that has universal support. He believes it is a good use of the property. They have also supplied a traffic memo for evaluation of the traffic impact. Commission inquired as to the operation hours intended for the restaurant and event center. The applicant indicated that is as yet unknown, but likely at least 5 days per week and 12 PM opening. Hospitality representative Jon Kennedy, president of Grand Stay hotels, addressed the Commission and noted hotels are open 7 days per week, 24 hours a day. Their clientele includes many families. He stated that their operational approach is to protect their customers. As operators, they are concerned and proactive in working with the neighborhood. The construction technique will address the noise issues. Mid -week business travelers and family travel on the weekend. Travis Connell, Meadow Oak Lane, addressed the Commission. He inquired why the neighborhood was not notified. He stated many in his neighborhood were not notified. He also expressed concern about the traffic. He noted that it is his understanding that no one wants this development proposal at this location. Angela Schumann responded to the concern about the notice area, explaining that following state statute and zoning code for notification, property owners within 350' of the subject parcels received a notice. Given the width of Broadway and the configuration of the property, only the edge of the Meadow Oak neighborhood would have received notice. She also explained that the hearing notice is published in the 3 newspaper, on the City's website, as well as the required mailed notice which was sent on the 21St Mr. Connell questioned why the hotel would be located across from the park. Commissioner Tapper noted that he lives in proximity of the proposal. He explained his position that the speed is higher given the roadway design and that there is not development on the parcel, which may actually reduce the speed in the future. He explained that with development, it is his opinion speed will come down, although traffic volume may increase. Commissioner Tapper noted that the street is capable of handling the proposed volume and the site is guided and zoned for this use. Commissioner Tapper also noted that no access to 1-94 will not be allowed. Mr. Connell reiterated concern about traffic, particular truck delivery traffic. Commissioner Lehner noted that eventually something will be developed on this site as it is primate real estate along 1-94. She noted that with respect to the residential area, in an effort to evaluate best use of the property, putting in retail or fast food would generate more in and out regular traffic. The proposed use is a destination land use. Ms. Reimer inquired about the size of the project. Staff clarified the hotel is 76 rooms and 6,000 square feet of restaurant and 6,000 square feet of event center space. Mr. Connell inquired about the required distance for notice. Staff confirmed it at the required 350' statutory notice. Following the public comments, Commissioner Tapper closed the public hearing. Councilmember Gabler noted that she understood the discussion given the recent Willows Landing proposal which generated similar concerns from the River Mill neighborhood. Traffic from her perspective has not changed discernably in that area. For this proposal, occupancy can vary, so traffic will vary. She stated that traffic management is a factor to be discussed. She noted that residential was previously identified as a possible use for this site, which was also not well received. Councilmember Gabler also noted that the dog park was a community effort. Commissioner Lehner indicated that there are other subtle development adjustments that can be made to discourage traffic through the neighborhood, such as on-site exiting signage. She noted that the dog park discussion is a separate issue for review by the City. Commissioner Lehner inquired whether we are comfortable moving forward given the lack of information on the museum. Commissioner Tapper indicated he had similar concerns, specifically with the museum. Commissioner Tapper stated that it is his goal that this project succeed. Based on discussion at the workshop, Commissioner Lehner noted that this is a unique piece of property. She stated that she understands neighborhood concerns, but this type of use is something needed in Monticello and is zoned appropriately. She noted the remaining plans and pieces to be completed as part of the conditions of approval. 12 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-24 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE BROADWAY PLAZA PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2024-25 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL FOR BROADWAY PLAZA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STARK. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-26 RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BROADWAY PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT, AND REZONING THE SUBJECT SITE TO BROADWAY PLAZA PUD DISTRICT BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. B. Consideration of a Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to Planned Unit Development for a Phased Industrial Development including Industrial Service and Industrial Self -Storage as Principal Uses in the 1-2, Heavy Industrial District Applicant: Tim Flander/Big Bear Holdings, LLC. City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the agenda item request. Mr. Grittman noted the site is one of the few remaining undeveloped sites in the Oakwood Industrial Park. The applicant proposes a multi -phase development for his industrial services use, a lawn and site care business. The initial phase would include the principal use building accessed from Fallon Avenue. The applicant proposes variations to code requirements allowing a metal sided structure and relaxation of the surfacing requirements for the storage and circulation areas of the site. The proposed second phase will reduce that surfacing. Mr. Grittman reviewed the parking on site, indicated it to be adequate. Although the site plan illustrates a stockpile location, the applicant has clarified no stockpiling of materials will occur on site. Mr. Grittman stated that the staff position is that the building materials should meet current code requirements, especially on the Falllon Avenue facade. He then reviewed the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit Z, noting that the applicant will need to update their site plan using a certificate of survey to verify location and extent of the proposed improvements. Commissioner Tapper requested verification on whether native landscaping would be allowed in lieu of the turf grass condition of approval. Staff indicated that if native 61 landscaping is proposed as an alternative to turf, a plan will be required to verify code compliance. Commissioner Tapper referred to the elevations proposed; staff confirmed that the applicant's request is to approve the building materials as shown. Vice Chairman Tapper opened the public hearing. During the public hearing, applicant Tim Flander, 9450 Mason Court NE, Otsego, addressed the Commission and made himself available to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Tapper inquired about the request for metal building materials. Mr. Flander noted that it is a common material used in the district and complimentary to surrounding buildings. Commissioner Tapper inquired whether the lower 3' of the facade is masonry. Mr. Flander confirmed. He also confirmed that it is a single -story building with 16' walls. Councilmember Gabler inquired about traffic to the site. The applicant explained that 5- 8 employee vehicles are leaving in morning and returning in the evening. Commissioner Tapper inquired as to the impact on the requirement for compliant building materials on the front facade. Joe Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, the applicant's representative addressed the Commission. Mr. Elam indicated that the applicant is proposing the textured steel on all four sides. Hearing no other comment, Commissioner Tapper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tapper noted the two primary issues are the building materials and the proposed amount of outdoor storage. Commissioner Lehner stated that her position is that the proposal presented for both seems consistent with the surrounding area and therefore supportable. Commissioner Tapper also expressed support for the site plan given the potential future building expansion. He also noted the size and configuration of the lot seems to support this user. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-27 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR MASTERCRAFT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, MODIFYING CONDITION 2 TO ALLOW THE MATERIALS AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION ROBECK. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-28 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING TO MASTERCRAFT PUD DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE MASTER CRAFT PUD DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. MODIFYING CONDITION 2 TO ALLOW THE MATERIALS AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STARK. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 0 C. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Permit for proposed Commercial Lodging and Restaurants as Principal Uses in the Populus Sub -District of the Pointes at Cedar District; Variance to 15 -foot minimum setback to property line abutting a public right-of-way for a freestanding sign Applicant: Ted Thomspon City Planner Steve Grittman addressed the Commission, presenting a review of the request. Mr. Grittman explained that this request is not a PUD, but rather a development stage permit within the Pointes at Cedar zoning district. It is a conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance on the location of the proposed monument sign, for which the Planning Commission is the decision-making body. There is also a request for administrative lot combination to accommodate the site configuration. Mr. Grittman stated that the proposed use is a hotel with a meeting spaces, as well as a sit-down restaurant and quick service restaurant, all connected. The hotel is a 98 -room hotel. The primary access to the combined parcel is via Chelsea Road. There is also a combined access with Deephaven apartments to the south. This shared access is a component of Deephaven and The Pointes. The intent of The Pointes is to maximize building coverage and share parking to the extent possible. This site is in the Populus or northern biome of The Pointes at Cedar, which is reflected in the hotel building materials, as well as the front fagade of the restaurant areas. The landscaping plan also reflects the northern Minnesota theme. Mr. Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the development stage permit given the proposal's consistency with the goals and design standards of The Pointes. The monument sign was discussed relative to the site plan and the access point. Mr. Grittman stated that specific to this configuration, staff is supportive of the variance request. Mr. Grittman reviewed the conditions of approval for the requests. These included the required pathway connections and easements throughout the site, the submission of fagade plans for all sides of the building, and adjustments to the landscaping plan to further support The Pointes' objectives and the site plan generally. The applicants will be required to execute the necessary shared and cross parking and access agreements. Commissioner Tapper confirmed the location of access points, which Mr. Grittman illustrated along Chelsea and from Edmonson. Commissioner Lehner also confirmed that the apartments have two additional access points, one from Edmonson and one from Cedar. The access from Chelsea is a standard access width and both left and right movements will be permitted. Commissioner Tapper inquired if it was expected that the apartments and this site would share parking. Mr. Grittman explained that this site is required to provide public cross parking and that there may be some cross -parking between the sites, but not expected. 7 It was also confirmed that there is more than enough parking on the site to accommodate the uses proposed. In regard to the signage, the Commission confirmed that the setback is measured from the front property line. Commissioner Tapper concurred that the 15' setback for a monument should be reviewed for a possible amendment and agreed that the developer's proposed sign location was appropriate. Commission Tapper verified that the developers of the Deephaven apartments are required to complete the half street improvements to Edmonson as part of their development agreement. Staff confirmed and stated that the sidewalk is required as part of this development and those improvements. Councilmember Gabler and Commissioner Tapper confirmed the Chelsea Road access will be a full access. Commissioner Tapper inquired whether staff would be receptive to planters rather than planting. Staff indicated while it could be considered it is not preferred due to year- round permanent planting coverage. Ted Thompson, Good Neighbor Development and applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Thompson indicated his excitement for the district and project itself. He made himself available for questions. He confirmed that he understands the conditions in Exhibit Z. They welcomed the landscaping suggestions and cross easements in terms of their benefit to the project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-29 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE LOT COMBINATION, COMBINING LOTS 3 AND 4, DEEPHAVEN 3 INTO A SINGLE PARCEL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-30 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PCD PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROBECK. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-31 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 15 -FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STARK. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. D. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 — Definitions, 153.028 — Specific Review Procedures & Requirements, 153.090 — Use Table, & 153.091— Use -Specific Standards related to Contractor's Yard — Temporary, & Extraction of Minerals/Materials as Principal Interim Uses including Definitions, Use -Specific Standards, & other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent or application of the proposed amendment Applicant: City of Monticello City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed amendment. This item was tabled at the last meeting to allow staff more discussion on the proposed amendment. The code is intended to address the uses that relate to mining and excavation, particularly the extraction of materials. Mr. Grittman explained that Wright County had recently completed a thorough review of the mining and excavation ordinance. City staff are proposing to amend Monticello's ordinance and public process in developing their ordinance. He indicated that review was the basis for Monticello's amendments. The distinction between extractive uses and grading uses was explained. Mr. Grittman noted that there are some additional rules created for extraction uses, and then additional clarification for interim use permit standards for public improvement projects. Commissioner Tapper inquired as to whether the ordinance directly addresses users who acquire rights to extract materials on a parcel, but that is not the final use of the property. Steve Grittman confirmed. Likely parcels within the City were briefly discussed. Mr. Grittman noted that one such property, the Schluender property, is operating under a permit previously issued to them within the County. They are allowed to continue their mining activity under that permit. Mr. Grittman noted that the ordinance is also definitive on the reclamation required for mining sites. Community Development Director Angela Schumann noted that the final ordinance will not include reference to the B-3 or B-4 Districts, only The Pointes at Cedar. It was not staff's intention to allow extraction materials in the B-3 or B-4, only to continue to allow the materials removal in The Pointes area. That will be clear in the final ordinance brought to Council. Vice Chairman Tapper opened the public hearing. No public was present to address the Commission on this item. Hearing no public comment, Commissioner Tapper closed the hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEHNER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-22 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 153.012 — DEFINITIONS, 153.028 — SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS, 153.090 — USE TABLE, AND 153.091— USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS RELATED TO CONTRACTOR'S YARS —TEMPORARY, AND EXTRACTION OF MINERALS/MATERIALS AS A PRINCIPAL AND INTERIM USES INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. E 3. Regular Agenda None. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director's Report Community Development Director Angela Schumann addressed the Commission, highlighting the requests that moved forward to the City Council from the Planning Commission. She noted that the floodplain ordinance was reviewed by FEMA and approved. The floodplain mapping is also now finalized. The Commission had no questions on the report. S. Adjournment MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER STARK. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROBECK. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorded By: Angela Schumann Date Approved: Aq&st 6, 2024 ATTEST: Angela Schqnjarllh, Cjommunity Development Director 10