Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-06-2021MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 6th, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen 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 Paul Konsor called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Workshop Meeting Minutes — March 2nd, 2021 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES — MARCH 2ND12021. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes — March 2nd, 2021 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — MARCH 2ND, 2021. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Charlotte Gabler asked to add general discussion regarding B-3 Zoning. Item 3A. was moved to be discussed prior to the public hearings. E. Consideration to approve agenda DUE TO A NEED TO MAINTAIN QUORUM OF COMMISSION FOR ACTION, THE COMMISSION MOVED ITEM 3A TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District Applicant: Capstone Homes Andrew Tapper recused himself from discussion and action on this item. Steve Grittman introduced the item on behalf of Capstone Homes, who is seeking to vary the brick and stone requirements for the Haven Ridge First Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 1 1 11 Addition. Grittman reminded the Planning Commission of a recent amendment to the Monticello Zoning Code to allow developers to utilize this process of appeal for such building variation. Grittman noted that some of the homes they are offering are compliant with the zoning code, but some do not meet the 15 percent brick or stone requirement. Grittman provided an overview of the staff report and noted a table that reviews each home design and whether it was compliant or not with the code. Grittman noted that generally staff would recommend a 7.5 percent threshold for brick or stone on all homes as part of the recommended 25 percent of alternative materials on the facade. Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the approved ordinance amendment and the process. Grittman explained the new ordinance and the process for the appeal. Eric Hagen noted that the applicant was not suggesting an exemption from their split entry and multi -level models Cheyenne IV through Wesley. He asked if the Board needed to take any action related to those homes. Grittman declined and noted that those homes will meet the 15 percent brick or stone requirement. Konsor asked if a public hearing was required for this item. Grittman declined. Hagen asked about how staff determined the 7.5 percent brick or stone requirements for the homes that did not meet the requirement. Grittman explained that staff wanted to be reasonable in the request and there was no specific reason for the (7.5 percent) amount. Grittman noted that it appeared to be possible to meet the 7.5 percent recommendation for most models fairly easily. Hagen also asked if the list included in the agenda was a complete list of the homes they would offer in Haven Ridge. Grittman believed it was a complete list of the proposed homes for that development. Konsor invited the applicant to speak about the item. Heather Lorch, Capstone Homes/the applicant, introduced herself and explained the background for their request. Lorch indicated the importance the City places on home values and to have a certain standard to establish those values, previously through brick and stone requirements. She explained that what the City and applicant have learned is that the brick or stone is particularly important for the split level and multi- level homes. She noted that there is not a large inventory of two-story homes and Capstone Homes would like to be able to offer well priced homes of such type. Lorch reassured the Planning Commission that they felt the plans they submitted as architecturally designed, that may have reduced brick or stone, are very attractive and the price point will reach the City's demographic well. Lorch noted the importance of being fair to the other builders and developments. She explained that primarily those developments with that standard are primarily Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 2 1 11 split-level homes. Capstone Homes expressed the importance to provide 15 percent brick or stone on split-level and multi -level homes. Lorch asked that no percentages of secondary materials be considered for rambler and two-story models, but that the value of the home be considered and the designs be approved as presented. Lorch noted that there were 48 unique elevations that would bring a variety of home options and enhanced streetscape. There are three elevations that the applicant requested to be exempt from all brick and stone requirements to achieve a farmhouse look. Steve Bona, Capstone Homes, noted that the applicant is trying to understand what the concerns are of the City so that they can do a better job of offering ways to accommodate those concerns. Bona explained that the brick or stone requirement is in place to bring the value up on smaller homes (split entry and multi -level). Bona noted the already high cost of purchasing a rambler with full basement and two-story homes and asked that consideration be to remove the requirement for brick or stone on those homes. He noted that the company would still offer both styles of homes with brick, but that they would want the option to not have the brick or stone as well to be able to provide as many options for clients so that they have the ability to afford the style of home they want. Eric Hagen asked for clarification on the rambler style homes and if they typically come with a finished basement and the cost of that housing style. Bona explained that the ramblers are very expensive to build because they have a full basement. He noted that builders cannot offer them even close to the same price as a split entry home. He estimated $50,000 higher cost on full basement ramblers from split entry homes. Hagen explained that the proposed two stories appear very architecturally appeasing, but the ramblers that the applicant proposes does not seem as architecturally defined that would replace the 15 percent brick or stone look. Charlotte Gabler asked how many lots in Haven Ridge are rambler lots. Bona stated that they can build a rambler on a full basement walkout or lookout lot and a flat lot. Gabler noted that the City does not have a lot of rambler homes but does have more of the split entry or multi -level homes. Gabler noted acceptance of two-story homes without the brick or stone requirement as long as they had architectural upgraded features. She thought the ramblers may need more adjustment. Hagen commented that during citizen comments during the February Planning Commission meeting, that a lot of the two -stories in town may have built before the brick or stone requirement. Bona noted that they would be willing to build some specs that are two-story, which encourages more sale of those types of homes. Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 3 1 11 Gabler explained that she would like to have a sense of place in Monticello with new home development. Gabler also asked about spec homes and how much interest they generate. Bona noted that they built a lot of spec homes and if they build them, they can sell them. Angela Schumann explained the options the Planning Commission could chose to take. Konsor noted the importance of being flexible and cautioned the City from making decisions based on opinion. Konsor noted the importance of having conversations at the City with how to attract builders (who will have varied home designs) and people to the community. Any approval of elevations that are outside of the city code requirements per this request, would only be specific to the Haven Ridge First Addition. The Planning Commission discussed removing the requirements for brick and stone and the 25 percent alternatives for the two-story homes as proposed by the applicant. They also suggested staffs recommendation for the ramblers. Konsor asked for clarification on which elevations it would impact based on what the applicant submitted. Schumann noted the only elevation that does not meet staff recommendation is Birchwood C. The applicants confirmed they would revise Birchwood A to meet the code requirement. Schumann added that there is some question on whether Hemlock A meets the 7.5 percent brick or stone requirement, but that Hemlock C did not meet code. Lorch requested if a parameter for building materials is established, they would request 7.5 percent brick or stone and 25 percent of secondary materials for ramblers. She emphasized that adding the brick or stone would increase price points of these homes. The Planning Commission further discussed a recommendation. Members discussed the importance of porches as an architectural feature to allow the reduced brick or stone calculations. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-014 WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSALS FOR THE TWO-STORY HOMES TO NOT INCLUDE ANY BRICK OR STONE, BUT TO ACCOMMODATE AND INCLUDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RAMBLER MODELS (NAMELY THE BIRCHWOOD, CEDAR, AND HEMLOCK), AND TO ALSO NOTE THAT THE SPLIT-LEVEL HOMES WITH BE REVISED TO INCLUDE/OR ALREADY INCLUDE THE 15 PERCENT BRICK OR STONE. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 4 1 11 3. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary and Final Plat, for Commercial Self Storage in the B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant: Byron Bjorklund John Alstad was not present for this item. Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application and reviewed the location site plan of the proposed self -storage facility for Storagel-ink. Grittman noted that the parcel is currently zoned B-3 (Highway Business) and abuts an R-1 (Single Family Residence) District to the south. With other recent developments in this area including a self -storage facility and an RV dealership, this proposed development would complete development along Chelsea Road to the edge of 90t" Street. Grittman explained the proposed site plans as noted in the report. The applicant proposes to complete the project in two phases. Staff believes that the use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and is consistent with the expectations of other land uses in the area. Grittman explained that self -storage uses when properly run are a quiet use, with low volume traffic, and compatible with residential areas. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Grittman reviewed all conditions as outlined in Exhibit Z. Paul Konsor asked for clarification about Building B being moved. Grittman explained that it appears to be approximately 22 feet from the property line and requested that it be moved to 30 feet. This condition is included on Exhibit Z. Konsor asked what is in between Building A and B. Grittman noted that it was just an open area, but the Fire Department is requesting that the area be paved for fire access. There was noted discrepancies between plan sets for number of buildings. Andrew Tapper asked why the application required a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Grittman explained that a PUD is necessary as the site has multiple principal buildings on the same parcel. It was noted that the development standards of the B-3 zoning district were the framework for reviewing the application. Tapper asked if the applicants were proposing any fencing on their property abutting the residentially developed land to the south. Grittman confirmed that the applicants have not proposed a fence along this boundary, but would rely on tree plantings as a buffer, which is consistent with the buffer ordinance of the landscaping code. Charlotte Gabler further asked with if the buffer area is bermed to stagger the trees to reduce headlight glare into residential area. Planning Commission Minutes — April 6th, 2021 Page 5 1 11 Grittman confirmed. Tapper asked if there was a wall on the east side. Grittman declined. It was noted that there is no closing in of the site (with fencing or walls) besides along the street side of Chelsea Road West and a portion of 90t" Street. Charlotte Gabler asked if snow was planned to be pushed to the drainage and utility easement area and pond. Grittman expected that would be the case. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Byron Bjorklund, Storagel-ink/applicant, introduced himself and noted that the have maintained their site on Dundas Road for the past three and half years. He noted that they have received demand for larger storage units, which is why the applicant is proposing fifty percent larger units on this site. After receiving staff recommendations, the applicants had revised portions of their plans. Bjorklund noted that in compliance with staff's recommendation, they are proposing to utilize white, gray, and orange accent. This color scheme would be complimentary to their other facility on Dundas Road. Bjorklund noted that would propose staging in two phases (completion in 24 months) due to the material scarcity. In the interim, there would be a view of a white metal building with orange doors. He stated that it would be too difficult to build the perimeter of the site and then the center of the site. Bjorklund noted revised plan sets which included moving Building B to a 32-foot setback, Building D would be one building (12,000 square feet), and buildings along Chelsea Road West were pulled back to the 30-foot setback requirement. He explained that they would adhere to the recommendations of staff for screening. It was noted that some of the residents had encroaching fences located on the proposed site but noted acceptance of the existing fences location. Bjorklund explained that their final plans would reflect all minor changes. He also added that it would be unlikely that they would light the side of their property adjoining with the Monticello RV location. All of their lighting would be LED and downcast. They will submit to the City a photometric plan. No dumpsters or outdoor storage would occur on the site. The proposed gate to enter the facility would be setback to 50-feet. The Fire Department requested access through the fake walls for their fire hoses, which the applicants noted they would accommodate with a trap door that can be punched out. Tapper asked if both sides had doors on the proposed Building E. Bjorklund confirmed. Konsor asked for confirmation if Building C was no longer proposed. Bjorklund confirmed and noted that Building D became one building. Konsor asked where snow would be pushed. Bjorklund explained that there was room at the end of the aisles and between buildings, but they also use a service to remove snow if needed. Planning Commission Minutes — April 6th, 2021 Page 6 1 11 Konsor asked about headlight glare into the residential neighborhood and noted the applicants proposed screening. Bjorklund noted that the berm rises an estimated 12-16 feet along the entire south boundary. It was noted that the facility also closes daily at 9 p.m. Bjorklund added that they have an interior corridor of 50 to 60 feet to make a nice circumference around the site. The back buildings are at a setback of 30 feet. Bollards would be placed on the corners of each of the buildings for protection. Eric Hagen asked for clarification of condition 2 of Exhibit Z. Staffs preference was to build the external perimeter buildings and connecting walls first. This would result in changes to their phasing plan. Bjorklund noted that their intent in working with staff was so you could not see all the doors of Building E. He explained that the facility will not look that way for very long. With the demand and size of units, the second phase would be built. It would be onerous to build the perimeter first and then the interior with asphalt, concrete, and excavating. He noted they would rather paint the doors a different shade than orange rather than the temporary additional landscape screening. There preferred alternative was to keep the doors orange for that short period of time until phase 2 was constructed. Hagen asked if the alternative action for evergreen plantings was approved, where would the plantings go. Grittman explained there is a required planting around the perimeter of the site and the landscaping plan needed to be supplemented to meet the code requirement for quantities. Hagen asked if the landscaping would all be completed in phase 1. Bjorklund confirmed that they would complete the landscaping perimeter in phase 1. Shawn Weinand, owner of the land, appreciated the proposal and the applicant's willingness to change the plans per staff recommendations. Weinand noted that the purpose of the perimeter wall was to appear like a commercial building from the outside and to provide a feeling of belonging to the neighborhood. Weinand suggested that the applicant think about completing the entire perimeter landscaping right away because of the likely need for a construction entrance off 901h Street for phase 2. Weinand noted that part of the reason the applicant selected this property, and the buildings plans was the need from the RV dealerships in the area and the need to have a place for storage of such vehicles. He noted that both Affordable Storage and StorageLink's site on Dundas Road are completely filled. Weinand suggested that the applicant be allowed to go forward with their proposed color for the doors and to place a condition that if phase 2 does not commence by a certain time, the doors be repainted. Hagen asked for the depth of proposed Buildings K, L, and M. Bjorklund responded that Buildings K and L were 40-feet deep and A and B are 50-feet deep. It was noted that the units were 70-feet away from Chelsea Road and well over 100 feet from 90th Street from seeing a door on Building E. Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 7 1 11 Tapper asked if the lot was fairly flat. Bjorklund confirmed besides the berm on the south side. Hagen asked if the purpose of condition 2 on Exhibit Z was to ensure completion of something if the project ends after phase 1. He also asked if the City has asked past applicants to build some sort of a complete border or something similar. Angela Schumann confirmed that staff's position is to assume optimism, but there may come a point where phasing is delayed, so providing alternatives is recommended. Schumann stated that screening or materials condition has been required for other recent projects, including Affordable Storage. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission further discussed Condition 2 of Exhibit Z especially as it relates to not being able to finish phase 2 of the project. Paul Konsor asked what the concern was with staff's recommendation of constructing the perimeter buildings and screening walls first as vehicles such as RVs and fire trucks could drive through the site. Konsor questioned why construction vehicles would be a hinderance if the Planning Commission decided to go forward with staff's recommendation. Grittman thought the applicant's objection was that the construction could tear up some of the prior improvements. Schumann commented that through the PUD, the City can establish a phased plan for buffering should phase 2 not proceed. That alternative could be further supporting through the PUD development agreement and landscape security. Staff would also recommend that the applicant complete the full south buffer line. The Planning Commission could discuss phasing of the other landscaping, which may include additional buffer screening on the west edge if phase 2 did not proceed. Tapper explained his proposal for amendment of that condition read that by the end of 2024, if phase 2 is not completed, then screening measures would be required along the edge of the completed asphalt. Decision 1: Consideration of a Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-011, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS, TO STORAGELINK MONTICELLO PUD DISTRICT, TOGETHER WITH A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-012, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 8 1 11 RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 3: Development Stage PUD Approval ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-013, RECOMMENDING DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT Z ITEM 2 TO READ THAT IF PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 311 2024 THAT A SCREENING WALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT EDGE OF COMPLETED ASPHALT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Development Stage PUD Preliminary Plat Storagelink Monticello 1. No outdoor storage will be permitted within the project at any time. 2. Should completion of Phase 2 not be completed by December 31, 2024, the applicant shall install a screening wall on the west edge of the developed site. 3. Screening walls shall include both horizontal and vertical relief as depicted on the building elevations/architectural drawings. 4. Resolve discrepancies between site and civil plans and actual proposals, including fencing and screening walls. Where fencing is proposed, it should be decorative in nature, and must not include use of chain link materials. 5. No use of the future phase areas shall be permitted until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved site plan. 6. Revise landscape plan to meet the requirements as outlined in the report, including: a. Additional 35 ACI of tree planting to meet base site landscaping requirements. b. Additional plantings in the buffer area as specified in this report and the requirements of the zoning ordinance, with a greater emphasis on evergreen tree planting to effect a year-round screen. 7. Revise site plan and grading plans to illustrate a concrete curb as required by the code in all areas of the pavement without building coverage. Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 9 1 11 8. Provide new site and building plans highlighting Buildings B, K, and L meeting the 30-foot rear and front yard setbacks, as applicable. 9. Move the entrance gate further back from Chelsea Road per the City Engineer recommendation as to the appropriate distance. 10. Revise lighting plans indicating light illumination will be at zero footcandles on the south border of the parcel, and no more than 1.0 footcandles along other property lines. 11. Site signage shall be in compliance with zoning ordinance Chapter 4.5 — Signs. 12. Plat shall be revised to meet the required 12' rear yard drainage and utility easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance. 13. Provide updated elevations and civil drawings showing the revisions consistent with the requirements noted in the staff report and engineer's letter. 14. The applicant shall provide an updated certificate of survey dated within 3 months of the date of this report and prior to final plat approval. 15. Compliance with the comments of the Fire Marshal, which include those requiring and additional fire hydrant to meet fire code, and any plan revisions necessary to meet turning radius for fire apparatus. 16. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated March 251h, 2021. 17. Execute any required encroachment agreement necessary for improvements and access in this area. 18. Execution of a development agreement for the PUD and plat. 19. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing. 4. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Adopting 2021 Planning Commission Workplan Angela Schumann explained that after several months of work, the Planning Commission is asked to approve their 2021 workplan. The workplan is intended to provide a guide to the Planning Commission for their discretionary work over the next year. Schumann noted that many of the items may be multi -year projects. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN AS DRAFTED. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 10 1 11 Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as provided in the agenda packet. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the City Council's action regarding Spaeth Development as it was pulled from the Consent Agenda during their regular meeting. Schumann summarized that the nature of the Council's questions related to the review of the declarations for the project and clarification on what the plat was designed to accomplish. The City Council approved the request. S. Added Items B-3 Zoning: Angela Schumann displayed the B-3 zoned parcels on the zoning map. She noted that the parcels are a mix of vacant and fully developed parcels. Schumann noted that the B-4 District is a Regional Business District that is designed to serve commerce and traffic from a regional area. B-3 is a Highway Business District and is focused at the interchange of Highway 25 and Interstate 94 and designed to serve auto oriented business uses. 6. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:38 P.M. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: May 4th, 2021 Attest: IF/ AX Angela Sch nn Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes —April 6th, 2021 Page 11 1 11