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