Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-01-2020MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 1st, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, and Andrew Tapper Commissioners Absent: 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 Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 4th, 2020 JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — AUGUST 4TH, 2020. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendments to Monticello Zoning Ordinance to Chapter 3.5, Business Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (G) Central Community District and Chapter 4.5 Signs related to transparency of window signage in the Downtown; and Chapter 5.1 Use Table and Chapter 8.4 Definitions as related to Mobile & Manufactured Home/Home Park; and Chapters 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts and 5.3, Accessory Use Standards as related to building materials references for accessory buildings Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann introduced the continued public hearing from August for proposed miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments. Schumann reminded the Planning Commission that they recommended approval of one of three ordinance amendments at the prior regular meeting related to accessory buildings and material requirements for accessory buildings. The other two items were tabled Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 1 111 for language clarification based on discussion from the previous meeting. Staff presented the updated proposed ordinance amendments related to manufactured homes and regulation of window signage in the downtown. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-023, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. X, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS NOTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. All three ordinance amendments (including the one that was recommended for approval during the August Planning Commission Meeting) would be brought forward to the City Council meeting. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Installation of an Accessory Use Photo Studio Building Applicant: Jeff Sell Steve Grittman provided a review of the application for consideration and displayed a location site plan. The proposed facility would be located on the westerly parcel. The application for amendment to Planned Unit Development would allow a digital photography process that will catalog and market the vehicles they have for sale. Grittman provided a rendering prepared by the applicants showing the proposed structure and noted that it would match the existing principle building. The building is proposed to be 30 by 30 feet and is prefabricated with a turntable interior to the building that vehicles turn on. Grittman provided an overview of surrounding land uses from the proposed structure. He also noted that their site plan shows consistency to the setback requirement of 6 feet from property lines for accessory structures. He mentioned that one issue with the proposal included removal of an existing trash enclosure with the accessory structure. Staff noted that the applicants are looking for an off- site location for trash handling due to limited space. Grittman explained that the selected site would need to conform to current zoning. Grittman provided the applicants survey and pointed out an existing accessory structure (used for storage) exists near the proposed structure. The survey noted it was 18 by 30 feet, but the applicants felt that was incorrectly labeled and larger than what exists. It would be reconfigured to sit next to the proposed structure. The structures would need to maintain six feet of separation for accessory buildings per code. Grittman noted that the biggest flexibility with the proposal was the use of metal for the building exterior. In commercial districts, the Monticello Zoning Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 2 111 Ordinance limits metal to 15 percent of the exterior of the building. The applicant is seeking an amendment to PUD to grant this flexibility. Staff have suggested that the approval could consider this an interim use and time parameters could be set to meet Zoning Code standards, or be relocated to another spot inside the principle building, or the applicant would need to seek additional approvals for the structure long-term. Staff reviewed the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked if the six foot concrete pad was existing under the trash enclosure. Grittman confirmed and added that it encroaches into the setback. Murdoff asked if the structure would be in the exact same footprint as the trash enclosure. Grittman stated it would not be on the same footprint and it was unclear if they would pour new concrete. Murdoff asked how far it encroached into the setback line. Grittman responded that it was close to the property line. The timing of the existing concrete pad was unclear. Murdoff also asked about the exterior materials. Grittman responded that exterior buildings are typically required in commercial districts. Other materials are permitted, but not residential vinyl siding other than accessory to the masonry on a building. Murdoff asked for an analysis on how the interim use permit gets around the required exterior materials. Grittman noted that the PUD allows flexibility to that standard and that with the approval, the City looks for conditions on the site that make a flexibility justifiable. Grittman added that the applicant is not proposing any other addition to the site. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak about the project first. Jeff Sell, applicant/owner of West Metro, introduced himself and explained the proposed project. Murdoff asked if the company that builds the structure could offer different exterior materials. Sell indicated that it is produced how it was shown. Charlotte Gabler asked who the owner would be. Sell responded that West Metro would own it. Sell indicated that when they purchased the property, the cement pad was already existing to the property. The site was originally used as a Wendy's. Sell indicated that they would tear it out, replace it to code, and place a new slab. Gabler asked if the applicant was agreeable with an interim use permit. Sell confirmed. Murdoff asked if the turntable interior to the proposed building would require an additional concrete pad. Sell stated that it would set on the cement pad (separately) and rotate. Murdoff asked if the applicant would have the ability to move the building if an interim use permit was approved. Sell confirmed. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 3 111 Murdoff expressed concern with having an all steel building in a commercial district and asked that some (15-20 percent) of the front of the building have an approved material. Gabler asked if stone could be added to the front of the building. Sell indicated that the front is mostly a door and that if you added more to it, the building would look worse. He noted the proposed structure would look better than the dumpster. The color would match the existing principle building. Gabler noted that plantar boxes could be added in front of the building. Konsor discussed that the Commission should select to either approve amended building materials or an interim use permit. If enhanced materials are used, the structure would become more permanent. Tapper stated that there may be a possibility in the future that West Metro may want to expand their existing building and could possibly include this device inside of that building. Sell confirmed his appreciation for flexibility as they were unsure of how long-term they would like the structure/device. Gabler asked if staff had a recommendation for the length of the interim use permit. Grittman declined and noted that was a condition the applicant and Planning Commission could negotiate. The Planning Commission discussed the length of a possible interim use. It was asked if the applicant would have to come back for approval to extend an interim use permit, if desired to continue the use. Grittman noted that official approval would be needed to extend the length of the interim use permit. Sell requested five years for the interim use permit. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-0241 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD, BASED ON FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION, AND INCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT VALID FOR 3 YEARS. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion continued regarding the length of the interim use permit. Alstad amended his motion. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-024, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD, BASED ON FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION, AND INCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT VALID FOR 5 YEARS. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE DURATION OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT. Exhibit Z Amendment to Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 4 111 Lot 1, Block 1, Carcone Addition & Lot 1, Block 2, Carcone Addition 1001 State Highway 25 South & 103 Sandberg Road 1. The trash handling equipment shall be relocated to an area attached to, or within, the principal building, or in a reasonable location that is not in a yard adjoining a public street. 2. The applicant will construct the building to meet setback requirements of 6 feet from both side and rear property lines. 3. The applicant removes concrete pad encroaching into the 6 foot setback area, and replaces it with landscaping required by Chapter 4.1 of the zoning ordinance. 4. The applicant shall submit a building permit for the accessory building which will indicate the location and materials utilized in the construction of the building. 5. The applicant executes a revised development agreement specifying the term of an interim use permit under the PUD and the termination date of such permit. 6. The accessory use building shall be subject to the review and requirements of the City Engineer, including those within the report dated 9/1/20. 7. The installation of the photo studio shall be permitted as an interim use for a period of 5 years from the date of Council approval. C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Removal of a Required Fence & Conversion of Self -Storage Space into an Office Use Accessory to the Self -Storage Use Applicant: Keith Burnham Sam Murdoff stepped down from the Planning Commission for this item and noted a conflict of interest existed. John Alstad was the acting Chair for this item. Steve Grittman provided an overview of the requested amendment to the original PUD that granted self -storage units. Grittman noted that the original approval included a variety of conditions including a phasing plan for landscaping and fencing. The phasing plan allowed the property owner to complete construction of the site and delay planting, fencing, and other improvements of the subject parcel to avoid damage due to construction of a series of smaller buildings. The applicant is seeking three changes to the site with this application. The addition of an on-site office and management staff did not raise any zoning concerns. It was noted that ample parking supply could accommodate that use. The second amendment is for a landscaping change adjoining the RV center site. It was noted that the RV center was permitted to have rock on the western adjoining property line, the applicant is proposing to replace grass with rock to blend in with the adjacent property. Staff did not see any issues for the City with that amendment. Grittman noted several other changes to the proposed landscaping plan, which included the addition of spruce trees and boulders. The most significant change to the approved original plans was to the rod iron styled Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 5 1 11 fence with stone pillars every 100 feet along Chelsea Road and Innsbrook Drive frontages. The applicant is proposing to not construct the fence. Grittman noted that the intent of the fence was not for security, but rather for ornamental purposes. The applicant would replace that area with a changing grade to the landscaping area along Chelsea Road. Rather than a sloped area as originally proposed, the land would be flat and grassed adjacent to the pathway to a two foot high boulder retaining wall. Above the retaining wall, it would flatten out again with landscaping as proposed in the submitted plans. It was noted that there was an amendment to the original PUD plans in 2018. Grittman provided the existing conditions and proposed amended conditions as indicated in Exhibit Z. Staff recommended approval of the application. John Alstad asked for the reasons for the proposed changes. Grittman noted that the applicant indicated that the fence was liable to damage and there is similar fencing along Chelsea Road that has been routinely damaged. It would also be a more maintainable landscape along the pathway and avoid the "crinkle fence" look that can occur with a metal fence. It was noted that the fence was never a requirement by staff and was submitted by the developer as a part of his original application for his landscaping. It was noted that the Planning Commission would recommend action to the City Council. Paul Konsor clarified that the applicant was going to plant evergreen trees in exchange of the fencing. Grittman noted that the evergreen trees were added landscaping along the west boundary. The boulder wall is the new addition, with a portion being located where the original fence was proposed. John Alstad opened the public hearing. Sam Murdoff, 9368 Golden Pond Lane, noted that he was a proponent of the original fence. He felt the changes to the PUD seemed reasonable. Charlotte Gabler asked the applicant if the fence along Chelsea Road has been damaged by snow removal. Keith Burnham, the applicant, stated that he believed down the block it was damaged, but his property has not been damaged. Gabler asked if the applicant would be open to keeping fencing on the Innsbrook Drive as it is residential. Burnham provided an overview of the amount of landscaping that would be provided along Chelsea Road. He noted that there would be difficulty with moving snow to their ponding area if a fence was necessary. Burnham further explained his request to eliminate the fence and in addition he would spruce up the landscaping especially along the pathway on Chelsea Road and where the slope is currently difficult to maintain at a 4:1 ratio. The proposal included a total of 406 lineal feet of boulders with a 2 foot retaining wall along Chelsea Road. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission further discussed the advantages of the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 6 1 11 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-025, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR AFFORDABLE STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, INCLUDING AMENDING THE FENCE CONDITION TO DELETE THE FENCE AND REPLACE WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED 8/10/20, INCLUDING THE 2 -FOOT TALL BOULDER WALL AND OTHER ADDITIONS. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Affordable Storage PUD Adjustment 3936 Chelsea Road West Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition 1. Redesign of the site plan to accommodate 24 feet of width for all drive aisles. 2. Provision for pavement markings and bollards in the center aisle area to ensure protection of building corners due to the curved aisle design. 3. Rock mulch in the planting areas to be larger irregular materials to protect pathway. 4. Transition grading between phases. 5. No outdoor storage permitted. 6. No use of future phase areas until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved plan. 7. Provide signage plans in compliance with Sign Ordinance requirements by separate permit. 8. Site lighting in compliance with City ordinances. 9. Compliance with City Engineer's report dated July 5th, 2017. 10. Execution of development agreement. 11. Grading and restoration of the site to be completed with first phase. 12. Utilities, including curb and gutter, completed for Phases 1 and 2 with the first phase of development. 13. The fence, as proposed at the August 2017 Planning Commission meeting, would be deleted and replaced with the improvements shown on the landscaping plan dated 8/10/20, including the 2 -foot tall boulder wall and other additions ine'tidingBelt nns evrc%rCCalong Chelsea, steal be installed stand by September --m-,242-0, with the rITC poo ie o� e fence to be eons`r-•Ti t L..(^.�(^�,o with Phase shown in the v lafi � P\7r �=-l.l l'�/Z�ITr�/� {.1 K�I���V VV iTt � �1 L/1N11J• In the alternative, the Commission may require a reduced fencing component,) Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 7 111 concentrating on the corners of the site in question, utilizing the prior approved fence and post design. 14. Building elevations and materials for buildings facing Chelsea Road and Innsbrook Drive shall be as shown in the Planning Commission packet of August 1, 2017, and building elevations revised to clearly detail material and facades for all building within the project. 15. Rise Approval of the landscaping plan dated 8/10/20 to illustr-ate the proposed fe"^-e include a timeline for landscaping for Phase , i spfing 2018, and September- 15,h, in-�for- the balanee of the development. ^r as required by City Council resolution. 16. Site and fencing plan subject to the City Engineer's comments and those of the Fire Department as related to the northerly access. 17. Modifying the original landscaping plans to replace sod with rock mulch along the westerly common boundary with the RV center as illustrated on the landscape plans dated 8/10/20. 18. The developer shall enter into an agreement for the PUD Amendment. D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Preliminary and Final Plat for a Two -Lot Subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District Applicant: Krishna, LLC Sam Murdoff returned to the dais and resided as chair over the meeting. Steve Grittman introduced the land use application for preliminary and final plat for a 4.5 acre parcel in Jefferson Commons subdivision. Grittman provided an aerial of the subject parcel and surrounding land uses. He noted the parcel is zoned B-4 (Regional Business) and the district does not have minimum lot area or width requirements. The City usually reviews subdivisions in that district to ensure that they accommodate reasonable commercial sized parcels to have parcels that can be commercially developed. Each parcel was proposed to be over 2 acres and are reasonably sized to accommodate commercial development. It was noted that the applicant has discussed developing Lot 1 on the proposal, but that the development was not part of the application. Grittman reviewed the proposed plat with the Planning Commission. It was noted a large drainage and utility easement exists on the lot and the applicant is seeking a vacation of approximately 40 feet of the 100 foot easement. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and believes it to be a feasible aspect of this plat and will still allow the City to maintain the sewer line there. The vacation would free up more space on the plat for the future development. If the plat proceeds to City Council, the vacation and request for preliminary and final plat would be considered by City Council. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the comments in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 8 1 11 Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the subdivision. It was noted the original parcel is one large lot, subdividing into two lots. Konsor asked why there was originally a 100 foot easement. Grittman responded that it was for a deep sewer line and when the City acquired the land in an exchange, they placed a very generous easement on the site. Engineering staff felt that the easement could be narrowed and still maintained. Konsor asked if a feasibility study was necessary due to an additional parcel and driveway, existing businesses in the vicinity, and being located along a curve. Grittman noted that it shouldn't affect any other parcel, but that it does offset the driveways. Konsor asked where the new proposed curb cut would be. Grittman noted that it would straddle the proposed lot line. Sam Murdoff asked why the development would not have its own access. Grittman responded that the access management for School Boulevard wanted to limit the total number of access points along the collector road. It is expected that over the long term, the roadway will eventually accommodate and carry a lot of traffic. The compromise was proposed to have a shared access between the two parcels. Murdoff asked why Culver's and Applebee's along Deegan Court have two separate accesses. It was noted that was because Deegan Court is not a collector route and rather a local road. Murdoff asked if a shared parking and access agreement needed to also be considered with the plat. Grittman responded that it is not part of the platting process, but would be part of the subsequent approval request for the site plan, which would be completed through a Conditional Use Permit for shared access. Murdoff opened the public hearing. Maikhou Vang, 3802 Hayward Court South, had a question of the proposed easement. Angela Schumann noted that property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel received two separate notices. One for the public hearing held by the Planning Commission for the preliminary plat and the other for the vacation of easement at a future City Council meeting (September 28, 2020). Schumann provided an overview of the current and proposed easement. It was noted that the easement was not being proposed to change for her property or any other properties besides the subject parcel. Schumann added that there are perimeter easements for all existing adjacent parcels and that those easements would be maintained. Gabler asked if there would be a proposed berm between the commercial development and the residential parcels. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design/project engineer representing the applicant (Vikram Aggarwal/Krishna, LLC), responded that there was space to accommodate the proposed use. A proposed site plan was displayed. It was noted that there was a lot of landscaping along the lot lines of the northerly residential parcels and there would be space to include a healthy amount of landscaping and screening on the commercial site. It was noted that the proposed use is a daycare facility, which would include a fenced in playground areas. The fence would be setback from the property line to include landscaping outside of fenced in area. Dahlke also noted the location of the proposed shared access point. Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 9 111 Vikram Aggarwal, the applicant, introduced himself. It was noted that the proposed daycare facility would be a part of the Goddard Schools system. Gabler noted that this facility was also being developed in Albertville. She asked what the hours of operation would be. Aggarwal responded that they would be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Aggarwal also noted that there is a tremendous need for childcare in the city. Murdoff closed the public hearing. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-026 FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KRISHNA COMMERCIAL, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT, AS WELL AS ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Preliminary and Final Plat Krishna Commercial Lot 2, Block 1, Jefferson Commons 3rd Addition (Replatting to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Krishna Commercial) 1. City Council final action on vacating the 100' utility easements in place, and replacing them with the proposed easements on the Preliminary Plat drawing dated 08/10/20. 2. Location of the driveway curb cut at a shared access location, and appropriate zoning approvals related to that construction. 3. The city waives the requirement for fee title property owner signature for application (as the parcel is tax forfeit), with the condition that the applicant obtain fee title to the property prior to filing of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay any required special assessment interest for prior city improvement projects as part of the property acquisition. 5. Execution of a development agreement related to the plat development. 6. Comments/Requirements of the City Engineer and other staff, including those related to right of way width for School Boulevard and any required easement for the existing trail. 7. Comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 10 111 Schumann provided an in depth overview of the progress of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that public feedback on the drafts was expected. A guide would be created to help stakeholders provide final feedback. A video regarding the comprehensive plan would be available with the public review drafts. In the video, there would be an invitation for stakeholders to participate in a community workshop that will be available in-person and virtually via streaming services. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission would be invited to also attend several meetings to participate in for September. A Concept Stage Planned Unit Development submittal has been received for a parcel along Chelsea Road West, with a meeting scheduled for September 28, 2020 at 5 p.m. In addition, the Planning Commission is invited to attend an upcoming EDA Meeting to hear a presentation regarding the Housing Report. Lastly, Schumann provided an update regarding the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership. The partnership is currently working on the second round of engagement and has invited the Planning Commission to participate. Sam Murdoff asked if the Planning Commission members would be notified to attend future events. Schumann confirmed and noted that Outlook appointments would be sent. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:50 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander _r Approved: October 6th, 2020 Attest: -ilk, Angela S Jann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — September 1 st, 2020 Page 11111