Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 02-03-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsters called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council Liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of J 115 Community Development Director Schumann indicated that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6t', 2009 would be provided at an upcoming meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 6th, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT . MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments. 12L00M 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Schumann introduced the Transportation Plan, noting that the State Statute allows for the Planning Commission's review of the Transportation Plan during a public hearing. She noted that if adopted, the Plan becomes Chapter 6 of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. A supermajority of the City Council will be required to adopt the plan formally as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Planner Grittman indicated that a staff report had been prepared as an introduction to the document, summarizing the contents of the plan to serving to aid the Commission frame their recommendation. A proposed resolution had also been prepared in the event that Commission is prepared to recommend adoption of the Plan. Grittman stated that staff's recommendation is for adoption of the Transportation Plan. One particular aspect of the plan that staff focused on was Highway 25. Grittman noted that the Planning Corru~nission had spent quite a bit of time discussing Highway 25 during the Comp Plan process, and this plan outlined options for alleviation of the current and future congestion. Staff is recommending a further study of roundabouts as the preferred option, as staff believes roundabouts provide the best alternative to solving multiple corridor issues over the long term. Grittman noted that multiple jurisdictions will be involved in the ultimate decision. The goal for staff was to encourage further detailed study of roundabouts for the corridor. The other major issues staff has reviewed relate to river crossings, a third interchange location, and overall transportation system function. City Engineer Bruce Westby thanked the Commission and emphasized the Transportation Plan is designed to assist the Commission, Council, property owners and developers as a decision - making document in transportation. It is a planning document, and as such it does not have a specific set of measures that has to be implemented in a certain order within a certain timeframe. Westby turned the detailed presentation of the plan over to Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, the plan preparer. Rickart stated that the primary purpose of the plan is to provide technical guidance to policymakers and staff on transportation issues within the community. Although it is not specific, it does provide a foundation for future transportation decisions. It also provides the ability for coordination between neighboring communities. The overall objective is to accommodate growth through transportation. This is achieved by maintaining access for business in both motorized and non - motorized traffic and doing so efficiently. Rickart stated that the previous transportation plan provided a basis for this preparation. From there, the recently adopted Monticello land use plan was incorporated, as well as long range plans from Big Lake. This was done to be able to review river crossing projections. The next step was to update traffic projections based on the long range documents. Rickart indicated that the plan provides a basic analysis of existing conditions in terms of what is there today and what issues exist. Then, the plan analyzes future roadway access, non - motorized traffic, transit, aviation and goods movement, and finally funding. Dealing specifically with Highway 25, engineering staff understood through the Comp Plan that Highway 25 was perhaps the largest single issue to be addressed by the Transportation Plan. Rickart stated that existing traffic at the river crossing is 27,500- 35,000 vehicles per day. At 2030, approximately 45,000 vehicles per day are projected. Rickart outlined the Transportation Plan's analysis of possible improvements to deal with this volume. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Rickart reviewed short term improvement options. The first option was signal timing modification implementation. Rickart stated that with other recent improvements, signal timing could be improved in the corridor. Second, adding turn lanes could help improve the capacity of the corridor, primarily at 7th Street, I -94 and Broadway intersections. Third, the study looked at access modifications, such as closing off side street access in certain locations, concentrating access at Broadway, 4th and 7th Streets. Signals could be placed at these intersections as part of this. The plan also looks at roundabouts in lieu of signals. In a scenario including roundabouts, similar to access modification at 4th, 7th and Broadway, traffic would be concentrated to roundabouts at those intersections. Rickart noted that the study indicates that roundabouts illustrate the largest long term benefit and improvement to the corridor. Rickart also reviewed long -term solutions for the Highway 25 corridor congestion, including looking at a one -way pair option. Rickart described the function of one -way pairs. Ultimately, over the long -term, the options illustrating the most improvements to the corridor include a second river crossing and an additional western interchange to pull traffic to other routes. Rickart noted that timelines illustrated in the plan assume normal funding cycles for Mn/ DOT and typical project development. Improvements can move forward if funding situations change. Rickart reviewed the Highway 25 corridor improvement options in greater detail. In discussing signal timing changes and turn lane improvements, Rickart stated that as part of an upcoming mill and overlay project on Highway 25, Monticello work with MWDOT to add turn lanes as noted in the plan. For the medium term, access modifications such as median extension with signal additions or roundabouts could be implemented. A lot of these things could also take place timed with development. Rickart noted that again, although these improvements do have an overall improving impact on the corridor, the long term issue is that 45,000 vehicles will still be traveling Highway 25 and crossing the river. In order to mitigate delays due to that traffic, the options for alleviating problems at the river are to add an additional lane, a one -way pair, an additional river crossing and another interchange, or a combination of those improvements. In terms of interchanges and overpasses, Rickart stated that the Fallon Avenue overpass has been identified in previous plans. This plan assumes completion of that overpass in 2030. The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that prior to construction of any other interchange west of Highway 25, the Fallon Avenue overpass is required to be completed. It is estimated that about 11,000 cars would use that overpass. This plan anticipates up to two interchanges west of Highway 25, Rickart reported. These could be located anywhere between County Road 39 and Orchard Road and would divert about 6,000 cars per day from the Highway 25 corridor at I -94. However, eventually, that traffic would still find its way back to Highway 25 to cross the River. In short, these improvements would not impact the river crossing, but would improve functionality of the Highway 25 corridor. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Rickart explained that river crossing options reviewed in the plan include a one -way pair with a corresponding river crossing or the widening of an existing bridge. These options would require improvement to the interchange at I -94. Rickart commented that staff had noted that the primary issue with a one -way pair is the creation of two high- volume barriers within the downtown. This creates problems for east -west traffic movements and pedestrian crossings. The Transportation Plan also reviews three additional river crossing locations. The first was at Orchard Road, connecting to Sherburne County Road 11. It is estimated that this crossing would see a traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day, and would divert approximately 7,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 crossing at Highway 25. With a possible County Road 11 interchange at I -94, it would also create a regional connection. Rickart suggested that the negative could be that the growth areas are on the other sides of the community at this time; this option would most likely not serve immediate growth areas. The second river crossing option was at Washington Avenue, connecting to Sherburne County 14. This option would see a traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, and divert 16,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 in 2030. Although this route would not be a direct connection to I -94, it would align with the Fallon Avenue overpass. This would be a purely local connection providing access for local population. However, it would carry a significant amount of traffic. It also serves the growth area of south Monticello and Big Lake. The third option was a river crossing aligning with the interchange at CSAH 18. This crossing would carry 18,000 cars and divert about 10,000 trips from Highway 25. Primarily, the issue with this crossing is that it gets closer to the proposed Otsego crossing. The spacing then becomes unlikely to create as large of an impact on Highway 25 traffic, Rickart stated. It does provide a little bit more regional impact connecting to Highway 14 and directly to the existing interchange at CSAH 18. Rickart then explained that other item reviewed in detail within the plan included the collector roadway network. The expansion of this network includes extensions of School Boulevard west of Highway 25 to County 39, the extension of 7th Street west to eliminate the existing gap and improvements to 85th Street south of School Boulevard. Rickart also discussed completion of the north frontage road or 95th Street, which uses existing right of way from the old interstate ramp. He stated that other north -south and east -west minor collector improvements are also identified to improve the overall roadway network. For non - motorized transportation, Rickart stated that two plans were created within the plan. The first is a local plan identifying trail, sidewalk and on -road paths. The second connects those local systems to a regional plan. The creation and coordination of these two plans ensures non - motorized connections are provided. Rickart noted that the plans use the recently completed Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment as a foundation for trail opportunities. He commented that the non - motorized plans were developed with the Parks Commission with assistance from City Administrator O'Neill and Schumann. In terms of transit, Rickart indicated that the plan discusses the existing park and ride facility along south Highway 25 and the existing service provided by RiverRider. The study did look at possible connections to the Northstar commuter rail service in Big Lake. Working with River Rider, it was determined that the primary obstacle to expansion of 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 transit service to Northstar is the bottleneck at Highway 25. River Rider has commented that getting across the river in bus is no different than in a car in terms of congestion. Rickart suggested that a future river crossing could change that scenario. The other connection reviewed within the plan was to connect to the Metro system coming out of Maple Grove. Again, the drawback is funding sources. Rickart relayed that River Rider indicated that they are able to acquire only so much funding for service design. Providing a metro connection would take almost their whole budget. They have commented that if their budget expands, they would also consider a system expansion. Rickart summarized the plan's analysis of funding and financing. He stated that the plan envisions that the City will work with Wright and Sherburne Counties and the State wherever possible. He reported that a regional coalition has been formed to review river crossing alternatives, as the more involved with surrounding communities for solutions, the more likely Monticello is to gain funding support. Rickart stated that federal funding exists and cycles will be coming up; Monticello will work with Mn/Dot to get some projects into the funding priority list. The other option for improvements funding is through local assessments. Rickart cited CSAH 18, which was built with a local assessment program. Rickart concluded by outlining the next steps, which include the incorporation of public hearing comments. Staff will bring those comments, along with results of meetings with outside agencies, forward to the City Council. He reported that staff is looking at Council adoption in March of this year. Engineer Westby clarified that when staff discusses a recommendation as related to roundabouts, staff is recommending a detailed study on the level of service these types of improvements would provide to the corridor. In short, the goal would be to provide a much better foundation of knowledge before recommending that the City move forward with an actual implementation alternative. Westby also introduced the outside agency representatives present, including Terry Humbert with Mn/DOT, John Mentor, the Sherburne County Public Works Director, and Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer. Chairman Dragsten inquired if all of the Highway 25 improvement options would be further studied, or is staff recommending that just the roundabout study move forward. Westby stated that there may be elements recommended that do not require great study. However, with any major improvements, a larger study is commenced to cover environmental impacts and design impacts and to look at costs and benefits. Westby stated that the study would look in detail at whatever options the City directed. Community Development Director Schumann again addressed the Commission, stating that the Police Commission has reviewed the document and would forward comments to the City Engineer. The Parks Commission has also reviewed the plan, in particular the Trails portion. They recommended approval, with some comments. Schumann entered into the record the draft minutes of the Parks Commission for that purpose. Schumann reported that the IEDC had also reviewed the plan. While the IEDC did not provide a formal recommendation, they did provide general comments for the Commission's 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 review. Other formal written comments from the public had been received and were also entered in record. Commissioner Gabler provided her thoughts on the plan, stating that she thought the plan functioned very well. She stated that in some areas, it was perhaps too vague and could have been more detailed, for example in the area of transit. Gabler noted that Monticello has strong potential for growth, which should cross beyond residential into other development sectors. This notation was made in relationship to the plan introduction. Gabler stated that table 5.1 seemed to provide a good task list for future transportation improvements. She also noted that in terms of a possible river crossing at Washington Avenue, the IEDC commented on the proximity to the hospital and she noted that further study ion relationship to hospital expansion would be needed. Finally, in looking at the timeframe presented in the plan she asked if there was a way to look at the interim picture, for example projections at 2015. Rickart stated that the 2030 timeline was selected due to a complete land use plan for development to that point. Rickart explained that the City would need to determine a land use picture for 2015 in order to determine a transportation projection for that timeframe. Gabler inquired if an analysis of what impact another interchange in the west would have in terms of impact on the City's industrial park. Rickart stated that typically, the development would drive the interchange location. Rickart noted that the interchange would obviously provide an improvement for access to those industrial developments. Gabler suggested that a better clarification of timing on an interchange was needed. Commissioner Spartz began his comments by stating that he thought transportation in many ways dictates land use. Spartz stated that the Highway 25 corridor is his biggest concern and found this plan addresses that issue in depth. He indicated that he would support working with neighboring communities to improve transit options. There is a great need to look at how to make transit function better and he believed that it should be a 0 -5 year option. Spartz stated that his other suggestion related to river crossing. He indicated his discouragement at it being a long -range solution. Spartz commented that a researching a second river crossing needs to be a clear direction for the City. Spartz continued, stating his personal view as a user of the current roundabout in Monticello. In that regard, he is not a big fan, as it doesn't seem to function as it should. While he understands it is a public acceptability issue, he commented that he is struggling with understanding its application in Monticello. For example, how a large vehicle with a camper or boat is going to maneuver through a roundabout. If another bridge will help alleviate the volume of traffic, perhaps the roundabouts will accentuate what happens downtown. Everything he has read about roundabouts indicates they are safer and allow traffic to move better. However, he would like to know about situations where they don't work for comparison purposes, as he is concerned about the volume of traffic coming for multiple directions. Commissioner Voight stated that after reading the plan, he thought that as Chapter 6 of the Comp Plan, this is the best chapter in the entire plan. In his opinion, it is far and above the quality of the balance of the comp plan because it lays out specific analysis and potential modifications. While it does not prescribe a specific route, it lays out the options, along with likely impacts. He stated that it provides guidance with foundations G Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 for that guidance. Voight explained that he also approved of the solid justification for the Fallon Avenue overpass. Before reading this document, that improvement seemed like a bridge to nowhere. After reading this plan, he indicated that he understands the need. Voight reaffirmed that preparing the plans for the Fallon Avenue overpass and for a second bridge crossing is critical. While the river crossing may be a 30 year project, it is essential to have a plan in place. He cited stimulus funding and that if funding becomes available in such scenarios, Monticello needs to be prepared. He commented that he thought the plan was well organized, but that overall, the City needs more aggressive in planning. Voight inquired about extending frontage roads along Highway 25; if there was a reason the roads aren't named. Rickart responded that they are commonly referred to as frontage roads, but they are extension of Cedar and Deegan, so they could be labeled that way. Dragsten re- stated that Fallon Avenue needs to be a top priority. Dragsten agreed that the plan was well prepared. He cited Table 5 -1 with the listing of priorities as an important tool. He noted the combination of intersection improvements along Highway 25 could be lumped as one improvement, as they all aid in the functionality of that corridor. Dragsten questioned whether, the City would look at all of the options further, and then narrow them down. Rickart stated that the next step in a detailed study would be an intersection control evaluation (ICE). In this case, the ICE would be at 4th Street, 7th Street and County Highway 75. The City will look at all options for those intersections from signals to roundabouts. Mn/DOT then reviews the options and from there formal recommendations will be developed based on the analysis. Dragsten inquired what the timeline would be for immediate options noted, such as signal timing and River Street modifications. Rickart answered that District 3 does have an application in for Highway 25 signal retiming through the first stimulus allotment, which is about a 12 month timeline. River Street's most recent study will be brought to Council next week. Pending that review, something may move forward there as well. Rickart also noted that as far as turn lanes, County 11 will get dual left turn lanes in Sherburne County in 2010. The Transportation Plan identifies right turn lanes at 7th , I -94 and County 75 to also support Highway 25 corridor improvements. Those could be completed with the Highway 25 overlay project, which is expected in 2010. Gabler commented that if the City is considering turn lanes and also roundabouts, isn't the City spending money twice? Rickart indicated that would be true. If roundabouts are truly something the City is interested in considering, it would be important to accelerate study timing in order to avoid duplicative spending. Dragsten inquired why the old Highway 75 off ramp doesn't get used as 95th street. Westby responded that the existing ramp was left in place because Mn/DOT is looking at replacing the twin bridges and wasn't sure if they would need those ramps for traffic control, so they were left in place. They will be replacing the bridges in July of 2009 — 2010. Staff will continue to talk with Mn/DOT on whether the City will be able to use those once the project is complete. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Dragsten asked Mr. Humbert and Mr. Fingalson to comment on the overall plan and roundabouts in particular. Mr. Terry Humbert, District 3 Project Development Engineer, thanked the Commission and City staff for the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Humbert stated that he had reviewed plan and in general concurred with the results of the plan. Regarding roundabouts, Mn/DOT is generally in favor of them as they have shown to reduce crashes and improve travel speeds. While they don't work everywhere, Humbert stated that extra analysis would be completed to include how semi - trucks or large vehicles would move through at this location. Dragsten asked Humbert to comment on Monticello's application in terms of roundabouts. Humbert stated that two -lane roundabouts are not yet functional on Minnesota highways, although they are under construction at Highway 95 and 65. He noted that similar to dual lane left turns, people will learn how to drive them. Dragsten inquired about bridge funding. Humbert responded that it is most likely that trunk highway funds would not be eligible because a second bridge would carry local traffic, which is not on the trunk highway system. There may be State Aid or other local funding options and federal funding may be available. Spartz asked Mr. Humbert about multiple roundabouts within a short distance. Humbert replied that although multi -lane roundabouts are somewhat limited, there are interchange locations where roundabouts are used at closer spacing. Spartz inquired if those are in Minnesota. Humbert replied that they are located in Minnetonka and Medford. Wojchouski stated that she was under the impression that the State is recommending roundabouts at locations such as Highway 75 and Highway 25. Humbert answered that in general, it is the favored option for intersections, although there is a caveat that other constraints that may not yield it as the final option. Spartz inquired what some of those constraints might be. Humbert responded that it might be right of way acquisition issues, spacing, or excessive traffic movements in one direction. Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Fingalson stated that although they have not reviewed the plan in great detail, the plan provides a good framework in terms of how transportation improvements would be constructed. Fingalson stated that in response to the questions about roundabouts, there is a place for them, but there is a learning curve as to how they function. There is a good system in place for evaluating all options. Spartz inquired about the possibility of partnering with other communities to expand park and ride and transit options, as this would ultimately take vehicles off Highway 25. Fingalson commented on the initiative coming out of Wright County Economic Development to support further study of metro transit expansion. Fingalson stated that although increasing transit options make sense, getting people across the bridge is still a problem. Voight indicated that he believes that people will continue to use I -94 to commute over Northstar as a quicker option. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Fingalson commented that funding is always a factor in any transportation improvement. Fingalson noted that federal and state funding limitations do exist. While the stimulus will help, there are still too many projects for the amount of funding. Westby expanded on roundabout locations on multi -lane roundabouts, noting the two - lane roundabout in Richfield. The 2020 volume there are projected to be 40,000 vehicles. There are also multi -lane roundabouts in place in Woodbury on Radio Drive. These are not on the State Highway system, but are in existence for reference on how these types of roundabout systems function. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Bob Viering, on behalf of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. Viering echoed the comment that the Plan is well written and researched. It provides a good analysis of the current situation and laying out options. He indicated that the only long -term solution to the Highway 25 issue is the construction of a second bridge. The Chamber would support seeing steps taken to make this a priority. In regard to Highway 25, the Chamber would also encourage working with Mn/DOT to implement the other short-term solutions. Finally, in looking at commuter patterns, Viering cited a recent study indicating that currently approximately 50% of those living in Monticello commute into the 7- county metro area. The vast majority of that is on I -94. Only 20% of people who live in Monticello live in Monticello. So, as I -94 does impact residents and those coming in to work in Monticello, Viering stated that the Chamber would add the improvements to I -94, including possible expansion, be added as a priority. Viering noted the presence of Sherburne and Wright Counties, as well as the State, as a positive to start working on the bridge project. John Mentor, Sherburne County Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. He noted that Sherburne County has been working closely with Big Lake, Big Lake Township, Mn/DOT and the City of Monticello on the dual left turn lane on County 11. It will be a step to improving congestion on Highway 25. As the last gentleman had suggested, these entities have already been meeting for a little over a year on these mutual transportation issues. One of the topics of discussion has obviously been the bridge. In that regard, while there is a need for the local connection, he encouraged continued cooperation with the City of Big Lake, Big Lake Township and Sherburne County. Mentor did not that the County Board does have a current policy prohibiting condemnation for transportation, which is important to note in terms of a local bridge project. Dragsten agreed that mutual cooperation will be essential in getting the bridge project completed. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission. She commented that relying on the freeway is not always a good option, especially on Fridays and weekends. She encouraged a closer look at transit. She noted the Chamber's previous comment on I -94 commuter traffic. In light of that, she stated that the transit option should be viewed as a part of any I -94 improvement priorities. Charlie Pfeffer, addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer referred to carbon - related issues in terms of where development will occur. He stated that as 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 developers, it adds a significant issue as to where people will choose to live and work. Pfeffer encouraged the Commission to be aware of that and to view the plan as somewhat fluid in light of those impacts. Chairman Dragsten asked if it would be possible to clarify comments as related to I -94. Rickart stated that they could add comments related to the I -94 coalition into the plan. Terry Humbert indicated that right now, looking at traditional funding, the addition of lanes to I -94 is probably beyond 2030. Mn/DOT has identified the six -lanes of I -94 as a `tier -two" project for the stirralus. He explained that an issue to be dealt with is lane balance. When adding lanes, Mn/DOT needs to be aware of lane transitions. South of the Crow River, the Metropolitan Council also has some jurisdiction. Dragsten asked when Mn/DOT may find out about such funding. Humbert stated it would most likely be 2010. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Wojchouski sought confirmation from Westby that the Chelsea Road traffic counts would be included in the final plan. Westby confirmed that they were inadvertently omitted and would be included in the final plan. Spartz commented that although roundabouts may not be his favored option, if it works best for the Highway 25 corridor, then the essence of moving the plan forward is most important. Dragsten suggested that no matter what occurs in short-term on Highway 25, the need for- the bridge crossing is clearly a priority and that it should be moved from 2030 -2050 timeline to 2015 -2030 timeline. Dragsten inquired if a bridge crossing was included in the Sherburne County plan. Mentor indicated that it was not. Wojchouski stated that for Big Lake, this is not an immediate, perceived problem as it is in Monticello. Dragsten concurred, although it can ultimately impact their commuting residents. Gabler agreed, noting that as it takes a long time to plan for such improvements, and as such plan for the improvements from 2009 -2015. The Commissioners agreed that the emphasis should be on planning for this crossing. Gabler also recommended that the Fallon Avenue Bridge remain the number one priority for 2009 -2015. Dragsten suggested grouping all of the Highway 25 improvements into one category. Rickart clarified that Fallon Avenue overpass only needed to be completed before any other interchange be considered. The Commissioners agreed that it was still a priority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WITH THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED, INCLUDING: • ALL OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE IMMEDIATE STUDY OF A SECOND RIVER CROSSING, BE TAKEN AS A 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 FIRST PRIORITY FOR STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. THE COMPLETION OF THE FALLON AVENUE SHOULD REMAIN A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AS STATED WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THIS MOTION MAY BE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, AND FURTHERS THE CITY'S LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THROUGH THE PROVISION OF VITAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings_ Applicant: Ryan Companies Planner Grittman presented that staff report for the request, stating that Ryan Companies is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2, Block 2 to create two parcels from what is currently one. Grittman reported that the purpose of the subdivision is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from the easterly remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union Crossings 4th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to accommodate future development, and may be split again at that time. Grittman explained that Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero - lot -line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint, since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with forgoing the easements that would have otherwise Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat as proposed. Dragsten inquired as to the reasoning for the irregular lot lines. Grittman responded that it is most likely these jogs are due to carving out lot lines based on needed parking and private utility connections. Dragsten stated that it would seem this configuration may eventually lead to property issues. Grittman agreed that is true for residential property, but in this case, the overall development is under the control of a single property manager. Gabler asked if the applicant is familiar with the conditions noted. Grittman indicated that they are. 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AND PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PUD APPROVALS FOR UNION CROSSINGS, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title-1 0 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting_ Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Schumann stated that staff are seeking continuation of this item to allow staff time to further review and discuss the need for this amendment. Spartz inquired why this hasn't been done in the past. It would appear to be a checks and balances measure. Dragsten stated that as Commission reviews these sites in detail at preliminary, it would be nice to see the plats in their final configuration. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks Open Space and Public Use Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann stated that staff is also seeking continuation of this item. Staff is completing additional research as related to statutory requirements and the City's park service area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 9. Community Development Director's Update Schumann noted that this will become a regular written update. Much of the information has been compiled from a report given to the City Council. Schumann did not the inclusion of building permit and housing inventory information. It was noted that Kohl's has made a decision not to locate in Monticello. Charlie Pfeffer, representing land owner Ocello, explained that Kohl's representatives and Ocello had met 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 to put the final touches on the purchase and operating agreements. However, after that meeting, Ocello learned that national executive committee had decided not to pursue the Monticello Kohl's store. It was a market decision. Commissioner Dragsten stated that he appreciated having the updates provided. 10. Adjourn. R SPARTZ O ADORN. MOTION BY COMMISSICNE T U MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 13