Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-05-2020MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 5th, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Due to recommendations related to the COVID-19 virus, the Planning Commission meeting was conducted as a remote/virtual meeting. Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. Sam Murdoff completed a roll call for attendance and noted all Commissioners and Council Liaison Charlotte Gabler present. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — April 7th, 2020 JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — APRIL 7TH, 2020. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. C. Citizen Comments N/A. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda No items were added to the Planning Commission agenda. Angela Schumann provided a quick overview of the agenda and citizen comments for public hearings. It was noted that all motions would be made by roll call vote. E. Consideration to approve agenda JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for detached accessory structure in an A -O (Agriculture/Open Space) District to accommodate an open, covered patio over existing outdoor entertainment space Applicant: Monticello Country Club, Inc. Steve Grittman introduced the item and explained that the request was for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of their clubhouse for a pavilion. He noted that the space is currently a concrete patio and the design Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 117 would include open sides and be similar in appearance to the Club House. The expansion would occur to the east of the existing Club House and be attached. In the past, a temporary tent was placed in this area and the proposed structure would be permanent. Grittman explained that an amendment to CUP was required because the site was changing. Grittman explained the staff report in detail. He stated that the zoning is A -O (Agriculture/Open Space) and the surrounding zoning is primarily residential. It was noted that the land to the west of I-94 is undeveloped or industrial. Grittman stated that landscaping exists around the concrete area and would remain if the proposed structure were approved. Grittman said that the application was consistent with the zoning district and CUP requirements. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions noted in Exhibit Z. It was noted that the applicant was not providing exterior lighting for the expansion. The Engineering Department did not provide an official comment letter as no new impervious would be created with the proposal resulting in no change to grading or drainage. Paul Konsor asked what triggers the CUP. Grittman responded that the use of the country club was approved under a CUP, any functional change to building or improved areas require a new CUP or amendment to CUP. The purpose of CUP requirements is to mitigate any impacts that may result from the proposal. It was noted that a setback of 89 feet was shown on the site plans that showed the distance from the expansion to the townhouses. John Alstad asked if the addition of landscaping should be part of the Exhibit Z comments. Grittman responded that it was recommendation 2 in Exhibit Z, including replacement of the visual screening if the fence proposed to be removed is not replaced. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Dan Frie, 214 Jerry Leifert Drive, the applicant, noted that the existing clubhouse was built in 1989. They had a temporary awning over the area, but due to a storm, it was destroyed. Frie noted that with the pandemic, a lot of business changes have occurred and he was unsure of the immediate use of the proposed space. He explained that members of the Country Club would contribute to building the space. The clubhouse has not had any additions since its opening in 1989. He indicated he would confirm whether the fence was to be replaced. Murdoff asked the applicant if he had any concerns from the comments in Exhibit Z. Frie stated that he was okay with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 2 17 Sam Murdoff closed the public hearing. He asked staff if they received any comments. Angela Schumann noted that no email or written comments had been received. Decision 1. Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Building Addition. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-013, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. EXHIBIT Z CUP Amendment for Monticello Country Club 1209 Golf Course Road PID: 155-030-000010, 155-500-033300, 155-500-034301, 155-500-101202, 155-500-101204, 155-500-1012059 155-500-102101 1. The applicant provides a lighting plan for the verification of compliance with code as a requirement of building permit application. 2. A visual buffer be added either around the canopy area, or in the area of the residential uses to the southeast of the site. This may include reconstruction of the fence, or other means approve by Community Development staff. 3. Other conditions of City staff and officials. B. Public Hearing — Request for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for height for a 40' building silo addition and Variance to the required 50' side and rear _yard setback Applicant: Copperhead Industries, LLC (Tim Burmis) Steve Grittman introduced the item and noted that the application was for CUP and variance. A CUP was being sought to accommodate an accessory structure of a materials silo with a height of 40 feet. It was noted that the property owner could construct an accessory structure up to 30 feet with a building permit, but because it exceeded the height, it was necessary for a CUP. A variance was being sought to the required setback to a 30 -foot setback. Normally, the setback in the I- 1 (Light Industrial) is 15 feet, but because the parcel is adjacent to zoning districts other than an industrial, the setback is 50 feet. The applicant is seeking a setback of 30 feet to accommodate their proposed project. Grittman indicated that the subject parcel is surrounded by a mix of zoning districts including: PUD Districts for both institutional, commercial, and residential uses, I-1 (Light Industrial), and 1-2 (Heavy Industrial). Grittman explained that the proposed silo would be located near the northeast corner of the existing building and would be screened by existing evergreen trees. Staff believed that little to no impacts of the proposed silo would exist to the public right-of-way or adjacent properties because of the existing building and Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 3 17 landscaping screening (both on site and adjacent sites such as Mills Fleet Farm, which includes a stormwater pond). Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z. Grittman then explained the variance request and noted that the proposed building expansion would eliminate the current outdoor storage space that exists on the property. He stated that the additional setback requirement is imposed to protect surrounding non -industrial uses from potential negative impacts. Grittman noted that the adjacent Mills Fleet Farm and school district property have existing landscaping buffers. Those adjacent properties at their nearest point to the property lines contain open field uses to the south and ponding and landscaping to the east. Staff believed that there would be little to no impact on both of these adjacent sites. He added that there would likely be less impacts after the construction of the expansion, as no outside storage would exist. Staff recommended approval of the variance per the test criteria with comments explained in Exhibit Z. Grittman noted that the site would be compliant as it exists with the proposed expansion for parking supply and plantings. Grittman explained that the Planning Commission acts as the Board of Zoning Appeals and would decide on the variance without a recommendation to City Council. Sam Murdoff asked if the building was constructed prior to the adoption of the 50 -foot setback requirement. Grittman confirmed and added that the setback requirement was likely an additional requirement brought forward with the updated code. Murdoff also asked for clarification on why the 30 -foot height maximum exists in the code. Grittman explained that the height standard related to aesthetics and firefighting issues. Grittman also stated that the 30 -foot height maximum requirement was probably an archaic standard and that it would be reasonable for the City to consider a future amendment to the code. He noted that most industrial businesses are looking for buildings taller than 30 feet. Paul Konsor asked about Exhibit Z, Item 3 regarding the landscaping. He asked what would happen if the landscaping would need to come down for various reasons, such as a storm. Grittman stated that it would be required to replace trees in the locations per the approved plan. He added that new trees wouldn't be able to replace mature, existing trees in height right away. It would be acknowledged that sometimes landscape plantings take some time before they effect the complete screen. Angela Schumann added that the City has adopted a work plan to review all CUP approvals from the past one to three years to ensure compliance with the conditions per the approved CUP. Konsor also asked for clarification on Exhibit Z, Item 5. Grittman explained that the Fire Chief and City staff will work with the applicant to make sure the building is properly protected and may include new fire hydrant locations. Konsor Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 4 17 asked if there is a standard for who pays for such improvements when a building expansion occurs. Grittman noted that the condition was more advisory at this point and that the City has adopted a fire code standard. It was noted that the Fire Department would continue to review for proper fire protection and that any business would have to comply to the fire code regardless of if a CUP was approved. John Alstad asked for clarification on the material that would be stored in silo. Grittman noted that it was resin beads use to make copper wire sheathing. Alstad asked if the material was non-flammable. Grittman responded that the material was solid, rather than liquid and that the material would have its own analysis from a fire protection standard. Alstad asked for clarification on the parking lot configuration. Grittman reiterated that more than adequate parking existing on the site even with the proposed expansion. There would also be additional parking lot space, should the business owner need to expand. Alstad asked about loading information. Grittman confirmed that the loading information was located on the north side of the building. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Jeff Atwood, President of Copperhead Industries and the applicant, 9530 Fallon Avenue NE, introduced himself and explained that his business has been in Monticello since 2004. Copperhead Industries is a tracer wire company that puts together complete utility locating systems to help locate underground non- metallic utilities. Atwood indicated that over the past 15 years, the company has continued to see growth. They would like to shift manufacturing from third source parties and bring that production to the Monticello facility. Atwood noted that in November, 2020, the company began purchasing the equipment to be able to complete the manufacturing in-house. He explained that the company is seeking the expansion of 7,300 square feet to increase pallet spaces to house 270 to 280 pallets. Atwood also added that it would increase capacity at the Monticello location of shipping 6 to 65 percent of the cost of goods over the next two years. There would also be the addition of a minimum of seven new employment opportunities. They were hoping to complete the expansion in the summer and fall of this year. Murdoff asked the applicant if he reviewed the comments in Exhibit Z. Atwood confirmed and stated they would comply with those conditions. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Schumann asked for clarification on the silo height as the indication on height provided was between 40 and 45 feet. Atwood indicated that it would not exceed 45 feet and could make either height work. Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 5 1 7 Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the decision related to the CUP for height. It was encouraged that the Planning Commission make a decision with a height maximum identified. Decision 1. Conditional Use Permit to exceed the height limit of 30 feet in the I-1 Light Industrial District. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2020-015 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30 FEET TO 45 FEET, BASED ON FINDINGS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Decision 2. Variance from the side yard setback of 50 feet; and the rear yard setback of 50 feet. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2020-014 APPROVING THE VARIANCE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 50 -FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE 50 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AS PROPOSED TO APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET EACH. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. EXHIBIT Z Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances Conditional Use Permit for Building Height Exceeding 30 Feet Copperhead Industries 9530 Fallon Ave NE 1. All exterior lighting must comply with the City's requirements. 2. The pervious areas remaining after construction has been completed shall be finished with seed or sod. 3. Existing landscape tree plantings shall remain as a part of the project. 4. Comments and conditions from the City Engineer. 5. Comments from the Fire Chief, including those related to fire hydrant location. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann summarized the Community Development Director's Report. Schumann detailed the Small Business Resource calls. She explained the resiliency of businesses in Monticello and their flexibility in adapting their business to the needs of their customers. She noted that businesses shared their challenges they are facing. Advice and information sharing were provided to Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 6 17 encourage businesses to connect with their accountants and bankers to understanding financial assistance through federal and state programs. 4. Added Items SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S INDUSTRIAL HEIGHT MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 5. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:28 P.M. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: June 2nd, 2020 %1 Attest: Angela Sch*aYW ColAmunity Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — May 5th, 2020 Page 7 17