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