Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-05-2021MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5th, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairperson Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2021 b. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 7th, 2021 c. Regular Meeting Minutes — September 71h, 2021 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7th AND SEPTEMBER 71h PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE THE JULY 61h SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVAL; PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 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 OCTOBER 5, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA, ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for expansion of an existing Vehicle Sales & Rental use in a B-3 (Highway Business District). Applicant: Ashbrook, Aeron Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Steve Grittman provided an overview of the application. The PUD that is in place in this location was put in place to accommodate the shared access between West Metro as well as Cornerstone. The expansion would be an addition to the already existing building on site. The applicant provided two different plans for the one expansion proposed. The first one included service bays for vehicles to be worked on, the second set of plans also included the service bays, but also had a second story on the expansion for office space. If plans are approved, the applicant will move forward with the plans that include the second story. The expansion would have very little impact on the site plan. This use is an allowed use in the zoning district and the expansion fits the site, causing no setback issues. Staff believes the use is consistent with both the function of the property as well as the intent of the PUD. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Exhibit Z. Eric Hagen asked how far the building would be from the Child Care Center next to it following completion of the expansion. Stephen Grittman said that the site plan showed a setback of about 35 from the property line and that there is a parcel that divides the property lines of both West Metro and the Child Care Center, which is roughly another 20 feet. The total space separating the two is about 55 feet. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing, hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Eric Hagen said that he believes it is a good use for the space and agrees with the staff s recommendation. Andrew Tapper said he did not see an issue regarding parking on the site. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-034, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z, ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Planned Unit Development Amendment for West Metro Buick GMC 1. The site plan shall be modified to specify intended off-street parking areas and related drives aisles. 2. The applicant address, to the satisfaction of the City, the handling of increased parking demand which may result from the addition of 2,736 square feet of new office space included in the "Plan B" development option. This dedicated parking should include adequate parking for employee counts under either option, and avoid on -street parking needs. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 3. The height of the two-story development option (Plan A) shall be reduced to 30 feet. 4. The submitted building elevations shall be modified to specify intended finish materials that match the existing structure. 5. All new site signage shall be subject to sign permit processing. 6. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure exceeding 1,200 square feet and a Variance to Accessory Structure square footage maximum of 1,500 square feet and Variance to side yard setback for an existing single-family residential use in the Central Community District, General Sub -District. Applicant: McCarty, Clarence Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Grittman noted that there are three proposed resolutions, two of which needed action. The one is for the Conditional Use Permit and the other two have to do with the Variance request. The applicant is looking to add 20-foot-wide garage on the east side of the house. The setback would be met as it is 6 feet from the property line. The added square footage of the garage would put the total square footage of accessory structures over 1,900 sq ft. The zoning code calls for single-family homes to not have more than 1,500 sq ft of accessory structures, but the code also calls for single-family homes to have an attached 2-car garage. The issue brought forth would be whether to allow the applicant to exceed the threshold of 1,500 sq ft after the Condition Use request. Staff believes that the attached garage is a consistent use for the site. Grittman noted the variance request to exceed 1,500 sq feet has been seen recently in the past and has been denied subsequently. Staff s recommendation is to approve the Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 1,200 sq ft threshold up to 1,500 sq ft but deny the variance to exceed the 1,500 sq ft threshold. An option observed by staff would be to reduce the size of existing accessory structure to meet the maximum of 1,500 sq ft. Eric Hagen asked if there was any historical significance to the barn on the property where making changes to it would be a problem. Grittman responded that it is not on the historic register. Paul Konsor asked if there was an aerial view of the barn on site, to know that there were no additions to the barn since its first construction. Grittman responded saying that just based on observation of what information is currently available, it does look like it was added on at a later date. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification there is no verification of the age of the building. Grittman noted that the applicant would be able to better answer that question. Charlotte Gabler asked if the commission had been approached about a similar Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 situation with the applicant prior to this hearing. Grittman confirmed that the applicant had submitted a similar application for a different parcel. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Applicant Clarence McCarty said that there is no documentation regarding the age of the barn but is aware that it is over 150 years old. A colleague at the Wright County historical Society had told him that the barn used to be the town's livery stable. McCarty confirmed that the barn has been added on to, but it would not be applicable to remove any parts of the barn. Eric Hagen noted that it has been allowed before for applicants to go above the 1,200 square feet. Hagen also understands the use of the barn, the option is there to remove parts of accessory structures to meet the 1,500 square foot maximum, but it is not desirable. Steve Grittman clarified that variances were decided by hardship, meaning there is no other option. That has since changed to practical use, where as long as it seems like a reasonable request, the variance could be granted. Eric Hagen asked Steve Grittman if it still true that variances can be approved only if all conditions were met. Grittman responded saying that to approve a variance, the essentials include a unique condition to the property, that said condition was not created by the applicant, and that same condition creates practical difficulty in terms of putting the property to reasonable use. The term "reasonable use" offers flexibility in its definition. Eric Hagen said that it is certainly unique to have a barn in the middle of down. But it does not restrict the property from reasonable use. He also noted that even though the specific impeding structure may be a unique situation because it is a barn, if it was another type of structure causing the same problem, those two situations would be one in the same. Applicant Clarence McCarty noted that this condition was in fact not created by himself (the applicant) as the barn was built before the town was created. It would be difficult to remove any parts of accessory structures on the property, but believes the attached garage is a necessary structure for the property. Andrew Tapper said that if there was some validation of the significance of the barn, it would be a different story. Eric Hagen agrees with Tapper saying that if something makes this barn unique to any other structure, then it would be clearer to the variance approval. Hagen also noted that it may be a good idea to look at the separation between hardship and reasonable use noted earlier, this would also potentially give the applicant more time to see if there actually is some historical significance to the barn. Hearing no more public comments, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing. Paul Konsor said that his opinion is that any property has limitation to it, the Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 barn is in use and being utilized and the homeowner, due the ask for expansion, has outgrown the property. Unless there is something from a historical society, he could not see reason to approve the variance. Teri Lehner concurs with Paul Konsor that if there is something to make this historically significant beyond the barn just being old, then the variance would be easier to approve. Steve Grittman noted that it is discussed in the staff report that if the planning commission is looking for a way to approve this, those factors would need to be addressed, such as information claiming historical significance on the barn. Andrew Tapper asked that if the CUP was approved but the variance was denied, could the applicant come back with the variance to try to get it approved again. Grittman responded saying that they would need to do it within six months, or they could appeal it to the City Council. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked Steve Grittman if they approved the CUP and removed the part in exhibit z regarding the removal of existing accessory buildings to meet the 1,500 square foot maximum and said this property has met its max capacity for square footage and could not ask again, could that be possible. Steve Grittman said that could be a condition on the CUP, but it is unlikely to make this a binding agreement down the road, due to new councils being able to overturn the decision. Paul Konsor suggested approving the CUP and tabling the decision on the variance. Andrew Tapper asked the staff about the application deadline if the variance decision was tabled. Angela Schumann said that staff would need to send the applicant an extension letter, or the applicant would have to waive their 60-day timeline. Commission would have until December 23rd5 2021, to make a decision on the variance. Eric Hagen believes that historical significance might not have anything to do with approving or denying the variance. Andrew Tapper responded that the commission would be looking for something binding or official. Eric Hagen does not see a way that this variance could be approved without it causing problems in the future with other decisions. Decision 1: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage with a total of more than 1,200 square feet on a single-family parcel. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-035, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND IN EXHIBIT Z. SECONDED BY PAUL KONSOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Decision 2: Variance from the maximum total garage space on a single-family parcel. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-036 (DENIAL), DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXCEEDING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE-FAMILY PARCEL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH PAUL KONSOR VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Conditional Use Permit for 319 W 3rd St 1. A portion of the existing accessory building shall be removed such that a setback of not less than 6 feet is maintained along the north property line. 2. The amount of accessory garage (storage) space on the property shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 3. No accessory buildings other than the new attached garage and the reconstructed detached building are permitted on the property. 4. The proposed attached garage is constructed per the provided plans. 5. No business use may be made of the building, and such building is utilized solely for the storage of personal residential equipment and materials. 6. The exterior materials used to finish the new attached accessory structure must match the existing home in material type and color. 7. No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining property. 8. All exterior parking and storage shall meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and existing residential trailers, equipment, and other storage is removed from the site, lawfully parked in the rear yard, or stored in the accessory buildings on the property. 9. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one calendar year of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. Recommendations of the City Engineer. 11. Comments and recommendations of other staff. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 C. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for an Amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for Proposed Portable Container Accessory Use. Applicant: Burnham, Keith Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Grittman notes the applicant states that in the language of the PUD district, outdoor storage is an accepted accessory use, but staff believes this is a typographical error. As part of the original approval of the PUD, outdoor storage was not intended to be allowed. Staff believes the intent of the application was to accommodate a low -intensity commercial use in this location give its proximity to the residential area, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan in this area. The addition of the storage boxes to the site would introduce more traffic to the site, particularly equipment that would move these boxes on and off the site. Staff believes this is incompatible with the way the district was originally designed. The applicant suggests that the storage boxes are a form of outdoor display, which is allowed in some commercial areas in Monticello. In staffs view, this type of use differs from outdoor display. Staff recommends denial of the amendment to the planned unit development as proposed. Eric Hagen asked how this application is different from the one the applicant submitted in the month of August. Steve Grittman responded that the applicant withdrew the application prior and reconfigured the layout of the site and rewrote the application in a different form. Paul Konsor asked to clarify the decision on the table. Grittman clarified by describing the first decision as the amendment to the planned unit development proposed by the applicant. The second decision is from the City of Monticello staff that would correct the wording in the existing in the PUD, as the intent of the language was to reflect commercial uses, rather industrial uses. Eric Hagen asked if this language was specific to this Planned Unit Development. Grittman confirmed that this language is specific to this Planned Unit Development. Paul Konsor asked what the language clarification of language would do to the PUD. Grittman responded by saying that the applicant was relying on the language to allow this use the applicant is applying for. Staff is looking to clear this up so future confusion wouldn't be necessary. Tapper added on saying that this PUD has always been a Commercial district and not Industrial. Paul Konsor asked to clarify that conditions within a PUD is specific to the property the PUD relates to. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Grittman said that was correct. Paul Konsor asked why this language change would make a difference when the condition was already specific to only this property under discussion. Grittman described the way language is created specifically for PUD and that the grammatical error came when the PUD was created. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Tim Dolan of the Decklan Group, representing the applicant Keith Burnham, said that the applicant interpreted the PUD the way he read it, that is why the storage boxes were already placed on the site. The language in the PUD that the amendment would change is where a great deal of confusion came from regarding this application. The basics of the request is that the storage boxes on site are not outdoor storage. The applicant claims that these storage containers are not outdoor storage, but more so open sales. The definition of Open Sales in the code reads as follows: "OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking." Since these containers are for rent or for sale, the applicant believes that these should be allowed in the PUD. The definition of Open Sales is vague and doesn't include the size of what is being sold, or where it is allowed to be sold. The applicant also believes that the amendment to the language does not apply to this request. Mr. Dolan also clarified the difference between the original application to the one being discussed at this meeting included public access and that this application is a Conditional Use Permit to allow open sales. The original focused more on the discussion of outdoor storage. Mr. Dolan also noted that the comprehensive plan guidance regarding this Planned Unit Development, the underlying zoning district, is Community Commercial. Permitted uses in Community Commercial include gas stations, drive-thru's, strip malls etc. The point being that these uses create more traffic and noise than what is being proposed in the application. Mr. Dolan believes this is the lowest impact use that could be put on said site, and that this is backed by almost all subsets of planning data. From a noise perspective, Mr. Dolan and the applicant both have difficulty in seeing the problems this would have involving added noise to the area. Dolan also noted that of the first 16 parcels on Chelsea Road, 14 have some sort of Outdoor Storage and/or Open Sales. Dolan does not see a better place in the whole city of Monticello that these storage containers could be placed. Dolan addressed staff concerns regarding the snow storage on site with these containers taking up some space where that snow storage would be, saying that the applicant did not want to continue with any further engineering regarding snow storage without some guidance form the planning commission. The Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 applicant has no problem also with addressing issues with fire access and public traffic through the site. To further emphasize cooperation, Dolan expressed his preference for tabling the decision so staff and the planning commission, as well as the applicant, could address concerns. Paul Konsor asked if Mr. Dolan if he knew if the applicant was aware that the original PUD had the clause included that stated no outdoor storage. Tim Dolan said that yes, the applicant was aware, but the application does not address outdoor storage because the argument is that it is open sales. Paul Konsor asked if the original PUD for the site had anything regarding open sales as an allowable use. Tim Dolan said that the PUD allows accessory uses on the site. It would "open sales as an accessory use to storage". Dolan noted that the accessory use definition for the PUD emphasizes a footprint on the site at no greater than 30 percent, this applicant is using around 5 percent. Paul Konsor asked why the PUD allows for open sales when originally the PUD was established for a storage facility. Dolan responded that the PUD outlines what could potentially be utilized on the site. For accessory uses, steps apply to getting the go ahead for accessory uses in the district, which is why they submitted an application. This process was something that both parties agreed upon when creating the PUD. Andrew Tapper asked that the applicant's preference would be for the planning commission to table action so they could come back with a Conditional Use Permit Application regarding open Sales as an accessory use. Tim Dolan said no, the CUP is already a part of this current application. But it would be tabled to allow the planning commission to tie any loose ends regarding this application so there is no confusion. Paul Konsor asked if the containers are for rent or for sale. Tim Dolan answered that they are both for sale and for rent. Paul Konsor asked if customers typically come to the site and pick up the boxes. Tim Dolan responded that they could do that. But the goal of these containers is to advertise to current customers who come to the site already, that is why they are not placed along Chelsea Road. Paul Konsor asked if a customer buys a container, the customer keeps it. Tim Dolan said potentially, yes. Paul Konsor said the definition for Outdoor Storage in the PUD includes the keeping of merchandise, which is what the containers are, so merchandise storage for longer than 24 hours would not be allowed in the PUD. Tim Dolan noted that the functioning word in that definition is "keeping". In terms of Open Sales, the definition's first part is what the applicant believes to be applicable in this situation. The differentiating part between the two is sales. Planning Commission Minutes —October S, 2021 Paul Konsor explained that he was attempting to clarify what specifically applies here whether it be outdoor storage or open sales. Andrew Tapper asked again to clarify whether this is an application for an amendment to the existing PUD to grant a CUP for open sales as an accessory use. Tim Dolan said that yes, this is an application for CUP to grant open sales as an accessory use. Andrew Tapper noted for clarification, that if the planning commission decided that this use was considered outdoor storage, then the application would go no further. But if the planning commission sees it as open sales, then this would come back next month looking for an amendment to the CUP. Steve Grittman noted that the main discussion is whether this is outdoor storage or open sales, and Grittman reminded the body that staff believes this is outdoor storage. Paul Konsor asked Steve Grittman if open sales was originally allowed in the CUP. Grittman responded that no, open sales was not allowed originally in the CUP. Paul Konsor believed that originally, the intent was clear that outdoor storage was not allowed, and because they are on the site for more than 24 hours, it is difficult to call this open sales. Tim Dolan emphasized that the applicant is relying on the City's code, not that the applicant is creating his own language. Angel Schumann clarified that reapplying would be necessary. The narrative provided by the applicant states that the application is proposing accessory use activity identified as open sales. The PUD itself states that the accessory uses shall be commonly accessory and incidental to the ordinance adopted and as specifically identified in the Final Stage PUD. Reapplying would not be necessary considering what they are already asking. Teri Lehner asked if the decision on the table is specific to whether this action is outdoor storage or open sales. Eric Hagen did not believe that this was the case. Charlotte Gabler asked Mr. Dolan if the boxes were rented, would they be brought back to the site and stay there after being filled. Tim Dolan said potentially. Charlotte Gabler and Paul Konsor were both in agreement that if that is the case, they would then be considered as outdoor storage. Paul Konsor noted that this discussion is not necessarily fixed on what this act will be called, it is more so whether the planning commission would allow it. On that note, Tim Dolan emphasized the area in which they are asking to do it, in the district and on the site itself, and that it is small ask. Charlotte Gabler asked why they physically need to be on the site in the first Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 place, because they are empty when bought or rented, why they couldn't be stored somewhere else, and the customer can pick one out of a catalog when the item is needed. Tim Dolan said that they could, but the intent for these to be on site is to put them in front of Affordable Storage's customer base. Paul Konsor asked if the applicant would be willing to have the three different sizes on site and when a customer needs one of the sizes, it would be shipped from a different site to wherever the customer needed the storage box. Tim Dolan responded that the one reservation the applicant would have with that is the replacement of said box when it is needed. Eric Hagen asked if these containers were being utilized by the business now. Tim Dolan said no the ones on site are not being used. Eric Hagen asked if they would be considered outdoor storage right now when they are not being used or being rented or sold. Tim Dolan said yes, as they sit now, they are outdoor storage until the issue at hand is resolved. Eric Hagen finds this concept of open sales difficult when in fact, they are being stored on the site. In doing so, the applicant would be in violation of the PUD due to the use of outdoor storage. Hagen understood that the definition of what these storage containers should be classified as is different in the eye of the applicant. When they are sitting on the site, full or empty, they are not there specifically for advertisement, but also storage. Andrew Tapper asked Eric Hagen what the difference between a box and a car if they are both items for sale and rent. The point of it being that it needs to be an approved accessory use. If it was agreed upon that this specific instance is open sales, it still would be against the PUD regarding the accessory use of open sales. Tapper's argument is that open sales in this case would be other activity, and not an accessory use. But he does see that it is very difficult to decide what these containers could be defined as. Angela Schumann pointed out that vehicle sales and rental is a specific use outlined by code and has its own standards. She also reminded the commission that this site has its own PUD district so the accessory use, whatever it be defined as, was not intended for this PUD, but the applicant has the ability to amend the PUD to allow one of these accessory uses. Paul Konsor asked if the applicant would be willing to display the four container sizes outside and the rest be stored inside a building. Tim Dolan said that there is no room to add building space on the site for them, and that it would affect the noise and vehicles moving the containers around the site. Tim Dolan reemphasized that this application is based on the City's adopted code. Charlotte Gabler asked if there was a way this request could be an Interim Use Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit. Grittman responded that the amendment to the PUD could have an expiration date. Tim Dolan requested that if an expiration date were to be added to this application, a minimum of 24 months would be appreciated. Eric Hagen asked what differences the city see in that 24-month period. Eric Hagen sees an issue with this because the containers are still being stored on site, and the expiration date for this application would not change that fact. It is going to set a precedent for other storage businesses to see what they can sell at their sites beyond storage. Tim Dolan emphasized that the definition of open sales includes the storage of said item for sale. Paul Konsor recommended to table this item for everyone to have time to get a better grasp of the issue. Tim Dolan said that was fine and this was expected by the applicant. Eric Hagen asked Paul Konsor if he didn't feel comfortable making a decision on this issue tonight. Paul Konsor responded and said he believes there could be more discussion of options, while these options haven't been discussed to the full extent, tabling would be an option. Teri Lehner agreed that more time to fully understand the issue at hand would be beneficial. Shawn Weinand, a landowner in the area, believes this is another tactic to postpone the moving of the containers. Notes there is no store on site to sell anything. Accessory uses to mini storage would include selling packaging and tape, etc. Mr. Weinand believes this was clear in the PUD. Eric Hagen believes that the only thing that has changed between the previous application to the current one is the definition of what the storage containers are. Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this item. Andrew Tapper clarified his view that it is difficult to deny this as open sales. But they can deny the fact that this is an approved accessory use to the PUD. Teri Lehner agrees that the original intent was not to have 40 containers on site. Eric Hagen believes that the job of the planning commission is not to find a solution, it is to act on the application at hand with the information given. Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to keep storage boxes on the site as outdoor storage. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-037, BASED ON Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 FINDINGS AS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF THE STORAGE BOXES FROM THE SITE NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 15, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4- 0. Decision 2: Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c). PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE AFFORDABLE SELF -STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CORRECTION OF LANGUAGE IN SECTION (8)(c) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ACCESSORY USES. ACCESSORY USES SHALL BE THOSE COMMONLY ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL TO INDUST-44 COMMERCIAL USES, AND AS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE APPROVED FINAL STAGE PUD PLANS, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE OUTDOOR STORAGE OR OTHER ACTIVITIES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4- 0. D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition for Monticello Meadows, a proposed 200-unit multi -family residential project in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Baldur Real Estate, LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of land use application request. The site would include two 100-unit apartment building as well as a community center. One of the comments staff had concerning the layout of the buildings on the site would be to adjust the buildings to fit better with the boundary lines. A significant amount of fill will be necessary on this site to build up the buildings. Grittman noted that this use of land is entirely consistent with the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan expectations with the site. Staff supports the resident density of the area at 18.5 units per acre and would have supported a denser residential use of this site. Staff also supports the open space amenities proposed on site, such as the community building. The building is valuable and supports the idea of the proposed Planned Unit Development. The parking supply is below the standards that are applied in R-4 districts for multi -family. The expectation is 2.25 parking spaces per unit and this site has proposed a parking average of 2.1. The applicants do however meet the standards when it comes to indoor parking, with 100 parking spaces underneath each building. Staff recommends that there is more detail to the lighting on site as well as the signage that will be on site. With the site being in the southern biome of Chelsea Commons, staff expects a more natural look in terms of grading. The berms on site have been updated since the original plans were received by staff to better fit the "Oak Savanna" style biome and features in the southern part of Chelsea Commons. Fire access is one area that needs to Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 be addressed as well. The applicants will need to clarify a better way to access the back sides of the buildings proposed. If access is still necessary, a trail system going around both buildings could be applicable if it meets all the necessities from the fire department. Staff would also recommend the structure of the building to represent the prairie style architecture that will be in the southern biome of Chelsea commons. It has been noted in the staff report that the community building proposed does represent the prairie style architecture staff is looking for on the site. Significant enhancements are recommended by staff in terms of the landscaping on site. Staff would appreciate to see landscaping that supports the southern biome of Chelsea Commons with more prairie -like trees and shrubs. The stormwater plan for the site includes capturing the stormwater and routing it to the proposed pond system at the center of Chelsea Commons. The for the Planned Unit Development on this site mainly include the ability to elevate the proposed site above minimum requirements of any residential district in Monticello. Grittman closed by reminding the commission that the decision tonight include rezoning to a Planned Unit Development and a Development Stage PUD, as well as a preliminary plat. Paul Konsor asked to confirm the new name of the project as it has changed from Monticello Meadows to Monticello Lakes. Andrew Tapper asked Grittinan to clarify the site the project has chosen to build on. Tapper also asked to clarify some topographical questions regarding the slope of the site. Chalrotte Gabler asked about the garages that were added to the site on the night of the Panning Commission meeting and what that means for the site. Grittman said he did not have any further comment on the garages at that point. Charlotte Gabler asked if garages on a site were ever discussed when discussing the Chelsea Commons Small Are Plan. Grittman said that the Small Are Plan does not define anything like garages on an apartment site, and most the project involved in the Small Area Plan are going to be PUD's so they will be analyzed individually. Paul Konsor asked if staff had given anything to the applicant regarding the architecture style the City is looking for in this region of Chelsea Commons. Steve Grittman responded that there is nothing beyond what is in the staff report. Eric Hagen noted that in the small area plan, parking has been discussed and promotes underground parking to minimize the area for parking in the small area plan. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Mark Welch of G Cubed Engineering said that reiterations have been done following the meeting with staff on the Tuesday before the planning commission meeting. The landscape requests have been acknowledged and are being worked on. The updated site plan showed that the community center Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 proposed on site has moved, other adjustments include the pathways on site, as well as the added garage space. Welch noted that the one underground parking space is attached to each apartment rented, they are not separate. The Garages however are separate and do not come with renting a unit. Eric Hagen asked how many garage spaces are being proposed for the site. Mark Welch said there are seven buildings for garage space and one building has eight spaces, 56 garage spaces, which would allow for just over a quarter of the units to have a garage space as well as one underground space. Welch also addressed the staff concerns regarding the fire access on the site. He said that as the site is in the plans, they meet the hose lay out lengths for being able to reach all parts of the buildings in case of emergency. Eric Hagen asked about the parking spaces facing the lakes on the site plans and was wondering if that would be the best use for the area. Mark Welch said that this was provided for the fire truck turn around criteria. But that could be adjusted to better utilize that space for looking at the lake. Paul Konsor asked if Mark Welch was the applicant, designer or architect. Mark Welch said that he was representing the applicant and he has been a part of the site layout process. Welch noted that one of the changes made was the roof design on the apartment complex. Eric Hagen asked if the housing density has changed since the last plans were provided to staff and the commission. Mark Welch said that the site has the same density and is still at 200 units. Eric Hagen rephrased his question and asked if the 18.5 per acre density has stayed the same from original plans to the updated plans. Mark Welch said that was correct. He also noted that due to the geometry of the site where the apartments are proposed, the applicant and designers could not rearrange the buildings to better orient the site. Eric Hagen mentioned that it had been discussed before about where the garages are, that piece of the site could have been used for light commercial. Such as a coffee shop or etc. Hagen was wondering if that idea was still being floated around or if it was of the table following the addition of the garages. Mark Welch said that there hasn't been much discussion of bringing commercial use on to the site. If commercial uses were to be added to the site, then there would have to be discussion of a second access. Charlotte Gabler noted that the second access point to the site would be very close to the intersection on Edmonson Avenue and that could be difficult. Mark Welch said that at this time, adding a commercial use on the site would not be something that is ideal to the site plan. Welch also noted that the site plan needs to show more berms along Edmonson Avenue. Eric Hagen asked if the landscaping was going to incorporate more of the Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 "Oak Savanna" style landscape to better fit the proposed biome. Mark Welch said that at this point they are not far enough along to show the specifics of the Oak Savanna style landscape. Eric Hagen asked about the intent underneath the powerlines on site if that was planned to be reserved for stormwater. Mark Welch said that there will be a need for stormwater in that area of the site, due to some of the grading on site and where things slope. Welch also noted that the developer adds a significant piece of art on the sites he develops and noted that there is not subsidized housing in these apartments. The apartments are going to be market rate and they will be on the higher end of that market rate. Paul Konsor made the comment that tabling decision on this project is still an option for both parties to address the conditions that would be adopted if this was approved. Paul Konsor also noted that he believed, architecturally, the apartments do not fit the expected design of the southern part of Chelsea Commons. It was brought up to him that this complex would be something not normally seen in Monticello, but to him it is a normal apartment project. When looking at the design standards for this part of Chelsea Commons, the material and landscape should reinforce the themes of the area. While it should be more of a prairie style architecture theme, Konsor does not believe the site plan fits that theme. Mark Welch noted the change in roof structure and how that change was specifically made to try and work in more of the prairie style theme. He also mentioned the difficulty of keeping with the prairie style architecture with larger buildings. He emphasized that the stacked glass on the complexes is reflective of that prairie style look in bigger buildings. Angela Schumann noted that the developer and his team are making an effort to respond to the conditions described in the staff report and the designs of the buildings and materials to better fit the style is one of the conditions. The staff report specifically addresses an enhancement of building entrance points and gateways on to the site. Eric Hagen said that he admires what has been presented to the commission but would like to see the project finalized between the developer and staff so there is an agreed upon project presented. Andrew Tapper said the project looks good and acknowledges the difficulties in making a three-story building align with that prairie style architecture. Tapper also addressed the possibility of instead of the added brick or stone the exterior of the building, adding more natural wood to it. Shawn Weinand, the owner of the land this site is proposed, said that the apartments the developer has already built are some of the nicest buildings in the Twin Cities. He noted that this project is one of the nicest projects that he has assisted with bringing to the Planning Commission. He finished his statement emphasizing that the more pressure the commission puts on the developer, the more difficulty he is going to have completing projects in Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Monticello. Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this agenda item. Eric Hagen asked staff if there was any way to have a special session if conditions are met before the next scheduled planning commission meeting to approve this item. Angela Schumann said that special meetings are directed under the action of the commission. If this is something that the commission could see doing, the next step for this item would be to table decision and wait for those conditions to be met. To keep with the same schedule for review at the council level, the applicant would have about five days to address the concerns so the planning commission would have time to call a special meeting before council reports were completed. Mark Welch said that that timeline would be difficult to get everything ready. Charlotte Gabler asked about a special meeting the day of the city council meeting, if that were applicable so the timeline was relatively the same. Angela Schumann said that her hesitation would be from whether or not a special meeting for council would be needed that day. A lot of this timeline depends on what the applicant would be able to provide to staff on the week of the 11 tr, Eric Hagen asked the commission if anyone was ready to move forward with the decision of the item. Paul Konsor said that he does not feel ready to approve the decision and recommended tabling the item. Eric Hagen asked the applicant what tabling the item would do to the development plan. Mark Welch said that there is no issue with tabling to the next planning commission meeting. Teri Lehner agreed with Paul Konsor about tabling the item until certain conditions are addressed and resolved. Eric Hagen asked staff if tabling decision would include tabling all three decisions regarding this item. Angel Schumann said that would be staff s recommendation to table all three. Andrew Tapper noted that he does not have the same reservations as the rest of the commission, but he is not going to argue any of the points already made because tabling the item has no effect on the project. Decision 1: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-03 8, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Decision 2: Consideration of a Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-039, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Decision 3: Consideration of a Development Stage PUD ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-040, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. E. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for a Corrective Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District Boundaries. Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann provided an overview of the land use application request. While making improvements to an area of Chelsea Rd West, it was noted that an area that was described as Otter Creek was not a part of a shoreland defined creek, but rather a county ditch system. This corrective measure is to ensure the City only applies these certain criteria where it is necessary. Angela Schumann continued pointing out on a map where the adjustment will be made. She also noted that if the City is not changing the text of the shoreland ordinance, but rather correcting the map, certification is not required. Andrew Tapper asked which map was the original and which shows the amendment. Angela Schumann clarified. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing, hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-041 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CORRECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination for two parcels located in the Central Community District, General Sub -District. Applicant: Mosbart Properties, LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Staff s main concern is with the survey showing that the correction would not correct all the issues that applicant wants to address. Staff s recommendation is to approve Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 the subdivision with a redescription of the conveyed to include all the improvements while at the same time maintaining the setback. Andrew Tapper wanted to clarify that the southeast 22 feet described in the request should be closer to 28 or 29 feet. Steve Grittman confirmed. Paul Konsor asked for confirmation that the two parcels in discussion are not joining up as one parcel, but more so a section of the one parcel is being absorbed by the other parcel. Steve Grittman confirmed. Paul Konsor asked what the parcels are zoned as. Steve Grittman said they are both in the CCD, downtown mixed use. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-042, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND CONCURRENT LOT COMBINATION, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND EXHIBIT Z. TERI LEHNR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION 213 THIRD STREET EAST (PID: 155-010-069020) 250 BROADWAY EAST (PID: 155-010-069080) 1. The submitted survey shall be expanded to include the legal description of the applicant's existing parcel and the existing funeral home parcel. 2. The parcel to be conveyed to the funeral home property shall be expanded in size such that the curb of the parking lot shall not be closer than six feet to any lot line (as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb). 3. The subdivision shall be processed and recorded concurrently with the subdivided portion's combination with the adjoining funeral home property. 4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds subdivision, the applicant shall re -apply and utilize a formal plat process. 5. Any future development on either parcel will be subject to required setbacks from the proposed property lines. 6. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer as identified. B. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commissioner to serve on the Chelsea Commons Professional Engineering, Park & Open Space Planning and Landscape Architecture Services proposal review team. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Angela Schumann addressed the commission and requested to amend the item to include two considerations. First, staff is looking for a planning commissioner to serve on the review team for incoming proposals for the professional engineering, park & open space planning and landscape architecture services for Chelsea Commons. The city Council approved requesting proposals that relate to the public spaces of the Chelsea Commons area. Commissioner Zimpfer has expressed interest in being a part of this process. Planning commission needed to appoint someone to represent on the RFP review team, and also a representative for the work group regarding zoning ordinances relating to the Chelsea Commons proj ect. Teri Lehner said that she would be happy to volunteer for wither position. Angela Schumann mentioned that it is a good idea to appoint alternates, in case certain times are unable to work for the person appointed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPOINT ALISON ZIMPFER TO SERVE ON THE PROPOSAL REVIEW TEAM. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPOINT PAUL KONSOR TO SERVE ON THE ZONING WORK GROUP WITH TERI LEHNER SERVING AS THE ALTERNATE. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report in the agenda packet. 4. Added Items None S. Adjournment ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. SECONDED BY PAUL KONSOR, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 p.m. Recorder: Hayden Stensgard �&_ Approved: November 1, 202 Attest: Angela Skvdkanr , Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021