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