Planning Commission Minutes 03-02-2021MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen
Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor 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
John Alstad called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:00
p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Workshop Meeting Minutes — February 2nd, 2021
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETING
MINUTES — FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — February 2nd, 2021
ANDERW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES — FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
N/A.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing — Consideration for Preliminary and Final Plat to Create a Single
Lot for an Existing Financial Institution in the Central Community District (CCD)
Applicant: CorTrust Bank (Mark Nettesheim)
Steve Grittman provided a review of the land use application and noted that the
proposal included platting six parcels into one. The parcels currently contains
CorTrust Bank (also the applicant), a demolished home, and access/exit. The
applicants are not proposing any physical changes to the lots at this time. The
applicants had anticipated that they planned to construct some additional
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 11 12
parking on the third parcel to east, which would require additional zoning
review.
Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions identified in
Exhibit Z.
John Alstad asked what was adjacent to the parcels on the same block for
consideration of platting. Grittman responded that it was a separately owned
parcel with a home and garage on it. This was not part of their application.
Alstad asked for clarification that there were no known zoning issues. Grittman
noted that there are no zoning issues, from the standpoint that applicants are
not making any site plan changes at this time. Everything on the site is an
existing condition.
Eric Hagen asked if combining the lots into one parcel, changes the ability to use
the lot in a different way in the future or redivide it. Grittman responded that it
would not preclude the applicants from redividing it if they thought they had to
for a future purpose. Grittman noted that it clears up a series of nonconformities
because the use has driveways crossing property lines and buildings within
setback areas. By eliminating some of these lot lines, it makes the properties
more conforming. Future redevelopment of the site would stand alone as a
request. Hagen clarified that all six lots are owned by the applicant. Grittman
confirmed. Hagen asked if at this time there were no entrance and exit changes
to traffic flow. Grittman stated that not as a result of the plat.
Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Mark Nettesheim, CorTrust Bank/applicant, noted that they have had the need
to increase parking on the site through an additional six to nine spaces.
Nettesheim noted that the parking will be located where the demolished house
sat, along with green space and sitting area for the community and employees.
Alstad asked how long CorTrust has been located in Monticello. Nettesheim
answered that CorTrust Bank acquired First Minnesota Bank in August 2019.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Hagen asked in the if all parcels were zoned Central Community District.
Grittman confirmed.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-007
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR
CORTRUST BANK MONTICELLO, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions for Approval
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 2 1 12
Preliminary Plat for CorTrust Bank Monticello
1. The final plat must show required drainage and utility easements around the perimeter
of the parcel. Add 12-foot perimeter drainage and utility easement around plat. The
easement can be reduced along Pine Street (TH 25) and 4t" Street to the distance
between the property line and building if less than 12'.
2. Confirm document for a 10' road easement along Pine Street (TH 25) or 10' of additional
ROW.
3. Coordination with the City with regard to future site plan changes to parking and site
conditions. Future parking lot expansion will require review by the Engineering and
Planning department and additional land use review.
4. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council.
B. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
Cross Parking and Access for a Building Expansion in the B-4 (Regional
Business) District
Applicant: ISG (Andrea Rand)
Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request.
Grittman noted that an existing development occupies the site (ALDI) and when
they originally built on that property, they secured a cross parking and access
agreement to the neighboring property to the east. Grittman explained that
some parking exists on the east parcel and that an access point is located on
School Boulevard. It was noted that this was completed because the access point
meets directly across from the Walmart access. The City tries to align access
points along major roadways. Grittman reminded the Commission that in order
to have cross access and parking, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The
applicants are proposing an expansion of their building which requires an
amendment to the existing CUP. Grittman noted that the applicants have
proposed an addition on the south portion of their building of about 2,300
square feet. The expansion has some ramifications for the site, including the loss
of (seven) parking spaces. They would also designate four spaces of parking on
the south parking area for pick-up options. Grittman noted that because of the
loss of parking, an increase in demand for the shared parking spaces on the east
parcel could occur. Grittman noted that the site overall meets the requirement
for parking. Grittman explained that prior to this proposal, they facilitated all
parking on site, but with the proposal their demand for parking would be met by
the cross -parking on the east parcel.
Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z.
Eric Hagen confirmed that there are sixty-nine spaces that ALDI has on their site
and 16 parking spaces are shared. Hagen confirmed that only 79 parking spaces
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 3 1 12
are required following the expansion. Grittman confirmed. Hagen asked if four of
those required spaces include the curbside pick-up. Grittman believed that the
curbside pick-up parking was in addition to the total required parking and leave
an excess of parking spaces. Hagen asked if the existing owners of the adjacent
property have any plans to use those additional spaces. Grittman noted that it
was unknown what the property owner's development plans were for that
property, but it was presumed that there will be a need for that parking area at
some point. At the time that the developer comes forward with development
plans for the adjoining property, additional zoning review would be required and
an understanding with how it relates to ALDI's use of the shared parking supply.
Hagen asked for clarification if the CUP applies to both the ALDI property and the
adjacent eastern parcel. Grittman confirmed. Hagen asked as a part of the cross
parking and access agreement, if there was a rule that one development has
priority of the shared area. Grittman noted that it may be reflected in the terms
of the easement between the properties. From a CUP point -of -view, we consider
that ALDI has the right to use those spaces and the future user of the adjoining
property may also have that right but would be required a CUP. This will give the
City the ability to measure the parking at that time. Hagen asked if any future
use would be subject to the existing use or would need further review. Grittman
responded that we would not expect ALDI to change their terms of use.
Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Ryan Anderson, ISG/applicant, noted that ALDI is working on expanding or
remodeling all their existing stores in the division where the Monticello store is
located. Anderson noted concern with Condition 1 of Exhibit Z, which notes the
requirement to update the legal agreement between the two properties. He
asked that the item be removed or amended. He noted that ALDI's legal team
reviewed the easement document. He noted that the project does not violate
the current agreement. The existing access between the properties remains the
same and the shared parking remains intact. There also was no provision in the
agreement that would require that this document be amended or updated for an
expansion of their building.
Alstad asked if this expansion was in anticipation of increased business.
Anderson declined and explained that due to the changing marketplace, ALDI
nationwide has been expanding product line and curbside pick-up options. This
would bring their standards up to what their customers come to expect when
shopping at their stores. The expansion is more to continue to maintain the
same level of business they currently enjoy. Alstad asked what the age of the
current building was. Anderson commented that it was built in 2014.
Andrew Tapper asked if a simple letter of acknowledgment could be received
from the adjoining property owner that they understand the change to the site.
Tapper asked staff how much updating are we expecting. Angela Schumann
recommended that the condition stand, but would be open to a slight change in
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 4 1 12
the language that would indicate consent from the adjacent property owner as
to the terms of the current agreement and that is the recommendation of the
City Attorney. Tapper asked if the main objective of the applicants was to not
have to re -write the whole agreement. Anderson confirmed and added that the
alternative recommendation by Schumann would be an improvement. Anderson
noted concern with allowing a landowner, and somebody not directly involved
with the property, approval rights over ALDI's project. Tapper noted that the
City's zoning ordinance does not have language regarding designated parking
areas for curbside pick-up. He asked for a recommendation on curbside pick-up
parking to roll those into future code amendment considerations. Anderson
noted the newness of curbside pick-up options and the complexity of
understanding the total demand for parking. Anderson added that ADA stalls are
not excluded from parking counts and he felt that at this time curbside should
not be looked at differently either.
There were no further comments from the public.
Clarification on Item 1 from Exhibit Z and the applicant's recommendation was
received.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-008 WITH EXHIBIT Z,
ITEM 1 AMENDED TO INCLUDE A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE
ADJOINING LOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE PLANS BY THE APPLICANT,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CROSS PARKING AND ACCESS FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE ALDI
GROCERY STORE, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION.
ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions for Approval
CUP Amendment for ALDI Grocery Store
PID: 155227001010
1. The applicant updates the legal instrument executed by the parties or provides a written
acknowledgement from the adjacent property owner reflecting the changes in off-street
parking facilities, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City
Attorney, to be filed with the City Administrator and recoded with the County Recorder
of Wright County.
2. The applicant submits a revised photometric plan as a part of building permit
application, verifying compliance with lighting standards.
3. The proposed construction does not appear to be increasing the impervious surface, if
the amount of impervious surface changes further review of the existing infiltration
basins would be necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 5 1 12
4. Add note to plans that contractor shall contact Public Works when reconfiguring water
service.
5. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales,
Rental, and Repair for Recreational Vehicles and Variance for Additional
Signage Allowance in the B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: RJ Ryan Construction
Steve Grittman presented the staff report for the item and noted that RJ Ryan
was representing Lazy Days RV. The applicants are proposing to occupy the
Quarry Church site (3939 Chelsea Road), which was originally developed for an
automobile dealership. The Church occupied a portion of the site, renting out
space to a commercial recreation use and an automobile service facility. The
applicant is looking to occupy the entire site, with the existing tenants vacating
the premise. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
Vehicles Sales, Rental, and Repair for the property. Grittman noted that the
applicants originally applied for a variance to allow for an additional freestanding
sign on the lot and along Interstate 94 but have since withdrawn that
application. Any approval of a CUP would require compliance with the City's sign
code regulations.
Grittman provided a location zoning map and adjacent land uses. It was noted
that several vehicle sales and rental facilities exist within the surrounding area.
Grittman explained that some modifications were proposed for the building but
would primarily be facade improvements and changes to accommodate the sizes
of the vehicles they service and sell. The footprint of the building would remain
as it currently exists. Grittman noted that the parking lot would be restriped to
accommodate recreational vehicles and that more than adequate parking would
be offered on site for customers and employees. Two small changes to the site
plan include the addition of a bulk fuel (propane) tank and a sanitary dump
station. Grittman reminded the Commission that a similar system was recently
approved for a recreational vehicle dealership south of Chelsea Road (Monticello
RV).
Grittman recommended approval of the land use application request with the
comments displayed in Exhibit Z of the staff report.
John Alstad asked for clarification if the site would be used for vehicles or
recreational vehicles. Grittman confirmed that the user is a recreational vehicle
dealership. Alstad also asked if there were any special consideration or Statues
that would need to be considered with the addition of a dump station. Grittman
responded that there would be requirements for connecting into the City's
sewer system. Andrew Tapper asked that the dump station is a direct connection
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 6 1 12
to the sewer system, and it is not a storage for later drainage. Grittman noted
that it was his understanding the dump station would be directly connected to
the City's system for treatment.
Tapper asked if the propane fill station ran into any concerns being in the B-3
District. Grittman responded that the propane tank use was a specific allowable,
accessory use, but it has standards that are applied to it from zoning, fire and
building codes.
Eric Hagen asked if there was only one way in and out of the property. Grittman
confirmed that there was once curb cut in the south east corner. Hagen asked if
there were any concerns with traffic with RV's and the width of the curb cut.
Grittman was unsure of the width but noted that if they intend to widen the curb
cut to accommodate the turning radius of their vehicles, they will need to work
with the Engineering Department. At this point, the applicant does not intend to
make any changes to that entrance.
Tapper noted on the site plan a dotted line outlining an additional curb cut.
Grittman thought that the entrance point was from the original Gould Chevrolet
development and was no longer active.
Hagen noted that this approval would extinguish all other CUPs for the site and
asked what other permits were approved for the site. Grittman responded that
the church, commercial recreation facility, and an automobile service business all
had active CUPS for the site, which staff recommend terminating with this
request. Hagen asked what the recent Nuss Truck & Equipment PUD zoning was
before their land use application. Grittman commented that the site was located
in two zoning districts and had two separate parcels. Hagen confirmed that Nuss
Truck & Equipment did not need a CUP because they received approval for a
Planned Unit Development. Hagen asked why a PUD was not necessary here.
Grittman explained that the developed site was one building on one lot and no
other modifications to the property were proposed at this time. Hagen asked if
the nearby properties had CUPS or PUDs. Grittman noted the Affordable Storage
PUD, Lake Region RV PUD, and Camping World PUD. He explained that Moon
Motorsports and Ryan Motors had active CUPs. Hagen commented that the use
of land use application permitting in the area goes along well with the
application from RJ Ryan Construction. Grittman confirmed.
John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Amy Carroll, Pope Architects/on behalf of the applicant, introduced herself and
noted that they were the original architect for the building when Gould Brother's
Chevrolet developed the site.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 7 1 12
Hagen asked if the intent were to fill the lot, on the west side of the parcel,
where the restriping was proposed, with all inventory and customer parking
would occur on the southeast portion of the site. Carroll confirmed.
There were no further comments from the public.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-009
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE
SALES AND RENTAL, WITH ACCESSORY MINOR VEHICLE REPAIR, FOR LAZY DAYS
RV, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales and Rental and Accessory Vehicle Repair
Lazy Days RV
PID: 155184001010
1. The applicant complies with the requirements of the City Engineer in his letter dated
February 17th, 2021.
2. The applicant complies with the terms of Section 5.2 (E) 30., Vehicle Sales and Rental.
3. The applicant complies with the operational requirements of Section 5.3 (D) (6) and (7)
Automobile Repair — Major and Minor, respectively.
4. The applicant revises their site plan to comply with the terms of Section 5.3 (D) (9), Bulk
Fuel Sales and Storage.
5. All prior zoning permits, including Conditional Use Permits for Automotive Service,
Public Assembly, Commercial Recreation, and other zoning approvals are hereby
extinguished as a part of this Conditional Use Permit approval and the City Clerk shall
record such documentation with the County Recorder's Office.
6. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and City Council.
D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Spaeth Second
Addition and an Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Spaeth
Industrial Planned Unit Development
Applicant: Ken Spaeth, Spaeth Development
Steve Grittman explained the land use application and noted that the existing
property was subdivided and placed under a PUD District several years ago to
accommodate a series of individually owned light industrial buildings and later
amended to allow industrial storage. Grittman provided the location map and
noted a PUD was necessary as only two of the eight lots had frontage on Dundas
Road. The applicant was seeking an amendment to plat the lower right-hand
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 8 1 12
corner (southeast) lot. The applicants were requesting to split the lot into three
new lots along common wall lines. These proposed boundaries would include the
entire lot and not just the building. Grittman noted that the remaining buildings
and parcels would not be affected by this particular application, with the
exception that changes to ownership pattern may impact how the properties
expectations for common maintenance are applied. One of the conditions
identified in Exhibit Z helps to address this concern and ensures that common
expectations continue to occur as part of the PUD. Grittman also proposed an
amendment to the language to the PUD District in the Zoning Ordinance. This
clarification would ensure that if further lots were subdivided, they would all
continue to be operationally the same as it was originally configured. It was not
the intent to have individually owned common buildings to have separate
maintenance since they share things such as roofs and walls. The applicants have
prepared a set of declarations that would apply, and a condition would be that
the City Attorney would have the ability to review that document to ensure that
the original expectation of common maintenance and access would be
maintained as a result of the subdivision. No other changes were requested with
the PUD request.
Staff recommended approval of the application with comments identified in
Exhibit Z of the staff report.
John Alstad asked if there would be ownership changes. Grittman expected that
there would be.
Andrew Tapper clarified Item 1 of Exhibit Z that if someone purchased the
property, they would need to abide by the conditions and covenants. Grittman
confirmed that they were still subject to the common interests even though they
are individual lot owners. Tapper asked that with this condition, the City will not
run into any future land use issues. Grittman confirmed, referring to the
association and easement documents. Tapper asked if the original intent of the
development was to lease or buy the building and not the land. Grittman stated
that it was originally intended that one person would own the land and build the
building on the subdivided parcel. Under law, they have the opportunity to
condo the building and sell a portion of their building. Again, Grittman reiterated
that staff are ensuring that all ownership interests are still subject to the
common interests of the site and PUD rules.
Eric Hagen indicated a letter attached to the staff report from SDK Architects
that mentions the building/fire code regarding fire resistance ratings within the
walls and changing from S-1 (moderate hazard storage) to S-2 (low hazard
storage). Hagen asked if this concern was covered under Exhibit Z, Item 6. Ron
Hackenmueller noted the minor change that is covered in the building code. It
allows a builder to go from a two-hour wall to a one -hour wall (which is an
existing one -hour wall in the building). A property line can be placed per code
and as proposed with declaration of covenants. Hagen asked that if someone
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 9 1 12
wants to change use for the building, it's built into the legal instruments
executed by the parties, that if any changes need to be made to that
classification that it could be done at that time. Hackenmueller noted that if it is
changed back to the S-1, a two-hour wall would need to be placed in the
building. Angela Schumann further commented that regardless of the PUD or
subdivision, anytime an occupancy in one of the units changes, the City has a
Change in Use form that is requested that they complete, but they also need to
comply with building code. Hagen commented that he posed the questions to
understand if the City is concerned with providing too much leniency on the
changing uses that could occur in the building and if other permitting may be
required. Grittman added that any occupant must comply with the zoning code,
including the use, in addition to the building/fire code.
Tapper asked about parking. Grittman explained that even though individual
owners own lots, they are subject to a common agreement that shares all
parking spaces and access in common.
Alstad asked if the building is already occupied. Hackenmueller declined.
John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineer Site Design/on behalf of the applicant, introduced
himself. He noted that the building already exists on the property and was built
with the party walls. The lot lines that they are proposing were measured and
defined in accordance with where those party walls were built. Dahlke noted
they have one interested party interested in acquiring one of the units shortly
after a potential approval by City Council.
Alstad asked what the anticipated uses of the building. Dahlke noted that it is for
storage.
There were no further citizen comments.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-010
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL LOT SUBDIVISIONS OF PRIVATE AND
COMMON PROPERTY WITHIN THE SPAETH INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD DISTRICT AND
A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REPLATTING LOT 8 INTO THREE SEPARATE
PARCELS, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC
HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions for Approval
PUD Amendment and Preliminary and Final Plat for Spaeth Industrial Park PUD Second
Addition
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 10 1 12
PID: 155255001080 (Plat) and 155255001080, 155255001070, 155255001060, 155255001050,
155255001040, 155255001030, 155255001020, 155255001010 (PUD)
1. The applicant updates the legal instrument executed by the parties reflecting the
changes to ownership and common interest for maintenance, access, parking, and
similar association requirements, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by
the City Attorney, to be filed with the City Administrator and recoded with the County
Recorder of Wright County.
2. The amendment to legal documents are recorded against all lots in the PUD and Spaeth
Industrial Park, including the three new lots in Spaeth Industrial Park "Second Addition".
3. As a PUD, future condominium association documents are subject to the review of the
City Attorney for conformance to PUD requirements.
4. No other changes under this amendment or plat are made as a part of this amendment.
5. Execution of an amendment to the Development Contract and Planned Unit
Development for the Spaeth Industrial Park.
6. Compliance with the comments of the City Engineer as related to all site utilities,
including those on the proposed Grant of Easement document.
7. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
noted in the agenda.
Discussion occurred regarding the City Council's action on the recent Capstone
Homes land use application request for amendment to Monticello Zoning Code.
The process was noted for which alternative building materials would be
proposed by a developer. Schumann noted the importance the City Council
placed on having enhanced building materials including brick or stone. If the
Planning Commission allows a deviation from the building materials, the City
Council is looking for enhancements commensurate with the 15 percent brick or
stone requirement.
Schumann also provided an overview of the Development Services report noted
in the Council connections, highlighting the annual land use application survey
results and an update on development inquiries and progress.
4. Added Items
N/A.
S. Adjournment
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M. ERIC HAGEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 11 1 12
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: April 6th, 2021
Attest:
Angela ScHuAann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 12 1 12