Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-01-2021MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 1st, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Andrew Tapper Council Liaison Absent: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:20 B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2021 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINTUES FROM JULY 6, 2021. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. b. Special Meeting Minutes — September 27, 2021 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 27, 2021. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. c. Regular Meeting Minutes — October 5, 2021 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 27, 2021. 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 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 1, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 2. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for Conditional Use Permit for Group Residential Facility, Multi -Family in an R-2 (Single and Two -Family) Residence District. Applicant: Kimber, James & Yassa City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the application and staff report to the Planning Commission and the public. The building that the group home is proposed to be in is zoned R-2 (Single and Two Family) under the City's zoning code. This district allows attached housing, which under state law, makes the district eligible for group home facilities with 7 to 16 residents. Grittman noted the recommendation to remove one of the two entry points to the site to limit congestion on Broadway Street. The applicant has informed staff that the driveways are important to this specific use as one of the entry points is elevated to maximize emergency services. Staff has since updated their report to find this request unnecessary. Staff also made the recommendation to maximize greenspace on the site reach 30% greenspace. If this were a new site that would be the minimum required. Staff received confirmation that the site currently has 26% greenspace. Since the request is an improvement to the existing condition, this is an allowed aspect of the site condition. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit with conditions provided in the staff report. Paul Konsor asked what the building is currently being used for. Ron Hackenmueller said that it is currently vacant. Steve Grittman added that the building used to be a funeral home. Paul Konsor asked if there is a necessity to calculate the staff on site regarding the living area minimums for residents. Steve Grittman said if they are a resident on -site, they would need to be counted in the calculations, but since it has been determined that the employees will be on shifts, this is not necessary. If there were plans for staff to be overnight residents, it would apply. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Diane Herbst of 301 Front Street asked if the applicant were to change the type of group home from senior living, would it have to be reapproved. Steve Grittman clarified that the conditional use permit is a request for specifically disabled adults and seniors. If this were to be changed it would require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this item. There was minimal discussion among commissioners. All were in consensus that this is a good use and fit for the property. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-043, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, MULTI -FAMILY, IN AN R-2, SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS SAID RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GROUP RESIDENITAL FACILITY FOR UP TO 12 DISABLED ADULT SENIOR RESIDENTS IN AN R-2 DISTRICT 530 WEST BROADWAY 1. The submitted site plan shall be modified to illustrate any possible reduction in impervious surfaces, and replacement with landscaped lawn and trees/shrubs. 2. All applicable State licensing requirements for the proposed "group home" use shall be satisfied. Proof of State licensing shall be provided to the City prior to construction. 3. Recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Recommendations of Building Department staff. 5. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. B. Public Hearing— Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Interim Use Permit to allow Extraction/Excavation of Materials in the B-3 (Highway Business) and B-4 (Regional Business) Districts Applicant: City of Monticello Steve Grittman provided an overview of the application and staff report to the Planning Commission and the public. The amendment is directly related to an expansion of allowances for materials to be removed on the eligible site. As this is an interim use permit, it was granted to operate through to the fall of 2022 with the first phase of construction. With this amendment, it would further extend the interim use permit to the end of 2023. If the completion of the excavation is not completed by that time, the City would have to return to the Planning Commission with an amendment to the date. Grittman noted that there would be no traffic due to this IUP on School Boulevard or Edmonson Avenue. Staff's recommendation is to approve the amendment to the interim use permit. Paul Konsor asked if this amendment were to be approved, would Dundas Road be removed. Steve Grittman replied that to complete the full excavation of the proposed location, Dundas Road would eventually have to be removed; this approval does not grant for that removal, which is a separate process Eric Hagen asked if the removal of Dundas Road would be one the last things removed from the site. Steve Grittman said that it will be based on the contractor's construction schedule. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing, hearing no comment, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this item. Steve Grittman noted that the City Engineer asked to share with the Planning Commission that Minnesota Department of Transportation review the request, and that there were no objections from the State. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-04411 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION OF AGGREGATE MATERIAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS SAID RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Interim Use Permit Outlot A, Monticello Business Center 71" Addition and Outlot C, Monticello Business Center, and unplatted lands PIDs: 155227000010; 155098000030; and 155230000001 1. Inbound trucks to the excavation site utilize the haul route shown in the original IUP submission materials, along Highway 25, to Dundas Road, to Cedar Street, to the site. 2. A return route utilizes Cedar Street to Chelsea Road, to Trunk Highway 25, subject to further review, and amendment if required by the City. 3. The contractor conducts only aggregate resource extraction, and attendant grading activities associated with that activity, and no other uses under this permit. 4. The operation extends from the date of City Council authorization, including any other permitting required to initiate the project, until December 31, 2023. Any further excavation would require an amended IUP during this timeframe, or a new IUP if activity under this permit has terminated. 5. Topsoil pile location approved by the property and seeded and stabilized per the City Engineer's requirements. 6. The operation is limited to 7:OOa — 7:OOp, Monday through Saturday for the period noted in condition 4. 7. The contractors enter into an agreement securing the conditions of the permit as described in the application, including setback, and the City Council's approval of the IUP and provides any securities required by that agreement. 8. Comments and conditions identified by the City Engineer, and other City 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Tabled Item - 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 the application and staff report to the Planning Commission and the public. Grittman clarified this item was tabled last month due to evolving plans and design work. Much of the changes were to meet the City's expectations and goals for the site. The applicant has since submitted a limited set of revised plans. Grittman noted the added landscaping and changes to the proposed berms along Edmonson Avenue. The applicant has also added definition to the community center proposed on site. Grittman also mentioned that staff recommends covered parking on site and the proposed garages and underground parking result in more than adequate space for parking. Grittman addressed the slope on the backs of the two proposed buildings. Modifications have been made, but staff believes the site would benefit from added design and landscape on the slopes to blend the site in better with the proposed Small Area Plan. Architecturally, staff supports the fronts of the proposed garages, but additional architectural detail to the side and backs of the garages. Staff believes that the community building proposed on site fits the architectural request of the City. Staff does expect adjustments to the large buildings to fit the architectural design for more brick or stone on the facade of the buildings.. Eric Hagen asked for an update on the fire code concerns from last meeting. Steve Grittman said that the final agreement will not require a 360-degree road surrounding both buildings for fire access. Rather, a usable surface for a ground ladder on the back side of the buildings is required. There are other aspects of the fire prevention on site required such as the spacing of the hydrants and the suppression system inside the buildings. Eric Hagen asked about the concerns regarding the stormwater and drainage system on the proposed site. Steve Grittman responded that stormwater and drainage systems are not final, but staff and the applicant are working in that direction. Exhibit Z of the staff report includes a condition requiring as much stormwater as possible to be drained to the proposed lake site. Eric Hagen asked if the grading plan in presentation was the updated version. Steve Grittman said that was correct. Eric Hagen asked about the accessibility on the back end of both buildings and if progress was made to making it accessible. Steve Grittman said that primary pathway on site is expected to connect with the primary pathway of The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan, and when it is finalized, it will be accessible. Eric Hagen asked if one of the entrances was configured due to fire access. Steve Grittman said that is an aspect of the proposed design, for service vehicles in general. It is to serve both purposes. Eric Hagen mentioned that one of the staff recommendations from the prior meeting was to open up that area to be able to view the proposed park. Steve Grittman said that this was also a request from the staff. The expectation was to have somewhat of an entry point on site to The Pointes at Cedar. This has been a talking point during discussions between the applicant and staff, but staff understands that with the design process, adjustments like this can be difficult to do. Alison Zimpfer asked if there was one parking space underground for each apartment. Steve Grittman confirmed that that was correct. Alison Zimpfer asked about the necessity of the garages on site. Zimpfer noted that the project on the north end of the Small Area Plan requested garages and were denied. Steve Grittman clarified that this proposal is slightly different than the other project because the other site did not have underground parking in the apartment buildings. An objective for multi -family buildings is to have a 1:1 underground parking ratio for each unit. The proposed garages do not change the parking set up on site, but more so gives residents an added item to rent if a garage was appealing. Alison Zimpfer noted that she could see the garages used for storage due to accessibility of the garages. Zimpfer believes they are quite a distance from the apartment buildings. Steve Grittman said that this has been a concern that has been expressed. Paul Konsor asked how one would define the architecture style to meet staffs expectations, particularly, the prairie style architecture requested for the site. Steve Grittman said that there are number of aspects that reflect prairie architecture. Some examples include horizontal themes to buildings, inclusion of brick or stone on the fagade of buildings, the goal is to reflect natural materials of the area. It is difficult to include everything that would reflect prairie architecture, especially on a four-story building. The community building and the garages do a good job of representing prairie architecture. It is encouraged that projects reflect the Small Area Plan as closely as possible. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-038, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER EIGHTH ADDITION FOR MONTICELLO LAKES, A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS SAID RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION... DISCUSSION: Eric Hagen noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, he had emphasized a number of conditions in Exhibit Z that the applicant and staff were to agree upon. He believes these conditions are moving in the right direction, and some have been completely resolved. Hagen noted he would prefer to see more brick or stone on the outside of the buildings. He believes the buildings are nice but would benefit more from added stone to help reflect the proposed "biome" of the area. Also, he indicated agreement with staff comments regarding landscaping, Hagen would like to see more prairie grass included in the site design. He wanted to make these points before discussion was closed on the item at hand. Paul Konsor agreed and noted also that the project and the buildings are designed at a high quality, but the architectural design will benefit this project more if it better reflected the prairie style architecture previously discussed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-039, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP, CREATING THE MONTICELLO LAKES PUD DISTRICT, AND REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO "MONTICELLO LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT", BASED ON THE FINDINGS SAID RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-0401 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MONTICELLO LAKES, A 200 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS SAID RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1, WITH PAUL KONSOR VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition Preliminary Plat Rezoning to PUD Monticello Lakes, Development Stage PUD 1. Revise the central entrance drive to create an expanded sense of entry and terminal view through the project. 2. Provide an updated site plan showing all amenities proposed by the development team. 3. Supplement the site plan with any proposed additional detail relating to the detached covered parking structures, including building materials, architecture, and other features that fit with the required CC -SAP theming on the site. This would include an emphasis on all four sides of these buildings, including the sides facing Edmonson Avenue. 4. Provide information on site lighting, including photometrics, wall lighting, and pole lighting details and height. Decorative lighting fixtures are encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme. 5. Provide information on site signage. Decorative sign plans and materials are encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme. 6. Revise the proposed grading plans to accommodate the following objectives: a. Maximize capture and pre-treatment of stormwater, directing it to other basin locations along the powerline corridor and/or the northerly abutting gateway, as directed by the City Engineering department. b. Revise the slopes on the outside exposure of the building walls to create an undulating, natural form rather than a straight-line geometric bank, and accommodate access from ground units to the exterior. 7. Compliance with fire code requirements as directed by the City. These recommendations relate to ladder access on the perimeter of the buildings, hydrant spacing and other site circulation and internal building fire code compliance requirements. 8. Revise building architecture to reflect the Chelsea Commons biome for the southern area. Incorporate prairie -style horizontal emphasis as reflected in the Community Building, including varying and interrupted roof planes, significant increase in the use of stone and/or brick above the garage -level exposures, and additional glass where practical as suggested in this report. 9. Modify the landscaping plan significantly to introduce more prairie -specific shrub and perennial species, along with oak clusters of different varieties, with particular emphasis on the outer portions of the project exposed to the common areas of the Chelsea Commons project. a. Landscaping treatments with the Gateway area beneath the powerline shall demonstrate compliance with the Chelsea Commons biome concept. b. With the modified form of the landscape, incorporate a more extensive prairie/oak planting palette throughout the project. c. Landscaping plans should be intentional and consistent with the grading plan. 10. Address all plat recommendations of the City Engineer. 11. Address park dedication recommendations of the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission. 12. Work with the City to ensure that connections to the adjoining Gateway and Commons area open spaces and pathways are properly placed for design, function, accessibility. and materials. Direct connections to the Commons should consider concrete pathways. 13. Compliance with the terms of the City's engineering staff letter dated October 26th, 2021. 14. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission. B. Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision and Lot Combination for six parcels located in the R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residence) District. Applicant: Michaelis, Jeff and Joan Steve Grittman provided an overview of the application and staff report to the Planning Commission and the public. Grittman said that each proposed parcel would meet the requirements of the zoning area, the only exception is the driveway arrangement that serves the two homes on the west parcels. One of the conditions staff has required is for the applicant to verify this use under an agreement rather than the verbal agreement used in previous years. This would be to clarify that this is a public right-of-way with a private improvement, so the applicant is responsible for maintaining that driveway. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and combination. Grittma noted that there was discussion regarding the combination of lots to better square off the parcels, however the applicant has explained that the parcel combining with the north home has been its backyard. Based on the historical use of the parcels, staff finds this to be an acceptable layout. Paul Konsor asked if all the parcels are owned by the applicant. Grittman confirmed. Eric Hagen asked if there was a natural boundary that connects the backyard parcel with the north side home where it cannot join other parcels. Steve Grittman said that it was understood that the parcel has been used as a back yard for that home. Paul Konsor asked if there was a fence to the south separating parcel A and Parcel C on the proposed site plan. Grittman confirmed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-045, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. Alison Zimpfer asked if the applicant does not adjust the lot lines to square off the properties, would that have be called out in the motion. Grittman said it is written in Exhibit Z specifically to make it an option for the applicant to do so, it is not required. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4 0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval for Simple Subdivision and Lot Combination 1. If feasible, PID 155015038082, shown as parcel 4 in the staff report illustration, may be added to proposed Parcel C, rather than Parcel A as shown in the applicant's survey of 9-30-21. This condition is optional for the applicant. 2. Staff and applicant verify easement descriptions, and that no existing easements interfere with the final subdivided lots, or that an appropriate vacation hearing is held to address existing easement locations. 3. The applicant enters into a use and maintenance license agreement for the use of the Hennepin Street right of way as private shared driveway between Parcels B and C. 4. The applicant's surveyor prepares the legal descriptions for the required Wright County Certificates of Subdivision and Combination. 5. In the event that the County Surveyor rejects the proposed legal descriptions, the applicant re -apply for Preliminary and Final Plat for the subdivision. 6. Recommendations of the City Engineer. 7. Recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission. 4. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 5. Added Items None 6. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. Recorder: Hayden Stensgard Approved: December 71 2021 i Attest: Angela Schum �o;munity Development Director