Planning Commission Minutes 11-07-2001
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday - November 7, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council
Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
Staff:
Robbie Smith
JeiT O'Neill. [<'red Patch and City Planner Consultant Bob Kirmis
1. Cal1 to order.
2.
...,
-) .
4.
Chair Dick Frie eal1ed the meeting to order at 7 pm and advised that Council Liaison
Herbst would be excusing himself early Crom the meeting to attend the MOAA meeting.
Chair Frie also advised that he will not be at the January 2002 meeting.
Approval of minutes of the reQular meeting held October 2.2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TllE
OCTOBER 2,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of addin},', itenls to the agenda.
. Roy PopiIek requested an update regarding Jay Morrell trucking. This was placed
as item II.
. Chair Frie commented on the 61h Street and Minnesota Street item that came
before the Planning Commission at their October meeting and commended staff
and the Wright County Sheriffs Department for their immediate response to the
traffic/speed concern in this area.
. Chair Frie asked Lori Kraemer for an update regarding the airing of the Planning
COlllmission meetings on Channel 12. Kraemer advised that she is stil1 waiting
for word from the Cable Commission and the Wright Technical Center as to what
their procedure is. Mr. Arnie Malkichek from the Wright Technical Center had
stated they would prefer to have the City Council meetings and the Planning
Commission meetings on the same tape, however Kraemer reported that there
could be problems with that as the meetings may be too lengthy to combine onto
one tape. Kraemer will advise at the December meeting.
Citizens comments.
None
- 1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a re(west for rezoning from R-2 to R-3 and eoneept
phm approval for a conditional use permit allowinQ a planned unit development in an R-3
district. The planned unit dcvclopment consists of a 35 unit apartment complex.
Applicant: Church of St ] Icnry and TC Builders Inc.
Bob Kirmis, NAC Planning presented the staff report noting that TC Builders is seeking a
Planned Unit Development approval to eonvert the fl1rmer St. llenry's Church building
into a 34 unit rental residential project. Kinnis provided a brief report on the proposal
and advised that the information was received late in the planning cycle. Issues raised in
the report by stall and planning consultant included additional architectural treatmcnts.
The applicants submitted revised plans to illustrate some change to stucco, but not all
areas have been treated consistently.
Stall has suggested that a building conversion of this type should include speci fic
attention to the architectural character and materials of the bui Iding. As designed, a series
of gables and alternative materials are proposed. Moreovcr, whcreas the original phms
show roof tile to match the original structure, thc applicant now indicates that they intend
to use asphalt shingle materials to approximate the color rather than tile.
Also of conccrn to staff is the olT-site parking arrangement for the residential use. The
applicant has provided a site plan that illustrates two garage buildings on the north half of
the parcel. The building would contain 36 interior parking stalls. Staff had indicatcd that
the City Council was seeking two eovered parking stalls per unit in new residential PUD
projects. The applicants had indicated that they would attempt to develop a plan which
illustrated one enclosed stall per bedroom. For the project as dcsigned, this would require
48 enclosed parking stalls. In either case, at least two parking stalls (enclosed and open
surl~lee) are required per unit. The proposed garage plan is 20 spaces short of the 68
space requirement.
Stalf had requested the applicant to discuss terms with the contract purchaser of the north
half of the church lot. in an efll)rt to develop the parking on the same site. The applicant
has instead submitted the off-site garagc plan. Planning staff would add a consideration
that the garage units (wherever located) should reflect the architectural eharacter of the
original buildings. This would include both matcrials and building style. The current
buildings have a great degree of wall articulation and other features that should be
reflected in any accessory buildings.
Chair hie opcned thc public hearing and advised that due to the limited time for rcview
of the applieant's plans, he would be recomll1ending that the Planning Commission tahle
thc itcm and continue to the December 4,2001 meeting.
Brian Tutt with TC Builders and applicant Wade Klick were present. Chair Fric noted S
eoncerns with the proposed plan at this time and would like the applieant to have amplc
-2-
.
Planning Conlll1ission minutes - 11/07/01
time to address them prior to thc December mceting. He stated several itcms such as thc
unit count bcing well below thc number of units required, thc use of stucco, otf,site
parking for residential use, parking deficiency, landscaping details, utility and drainage
details, and amended site and building plans addressing issues raised at site review.
Chair Frie noted that the Planning Commission is supportive in getting the project
moving ahead, but noted that with a PUD request certain requirements need to be met and
he docs not feel that this proposed project accomplishes those requirements.
Popilek agreed that he was uncomfortable with proceeding at this time also. He would
vote in favor of tabling and continuing the item. Dragsten stated he would also like to see
this item tabled but wanted to hear what the applicant had to say about the concept.
noting that with concept stage not all information is required at this time. Carlson had the
same concerns as Chair Frie and asked for thc status ofthc property on the north half of
the block and asked if there were any options there.
.
Brian Tutt, TC Builders, stated that they do not have the North half of thc property under
contract at this time. Wade Klick, applicant, said the land to the north may be an option
but they havc not discussed dollar amounts at this time. Klick also added that the main
concern he has is what thc Planning Commission/City stall is looking for from a
rcsidential standpoint. When determined, he could take that information back to the
church and other interested party, and if it \vorks financially, they could proceed. Klick
stated they cannot cut back the number of units but if it's a package that would work with
the City, the church, and themselves, as well as the possibility ofTH" assistance, the
project might work. They are looking for direction hom the City at this timc. They
agreed that parking to the rear would be great if it was financially feasible, but the
property is under contract with another party at this time. Klick added that they do have
the parking lot under contract, and therefi.Jrc the reason for proposing the parking/garages
at this location.
Klick also asked why they would be required to have 2-ear garages for single units as hc
doesn't feel it is nccessary and would like this c1arilled. Also would likc to come to a
more defIned plan with staff, and regarding aesthetics matching up the garages with the
existing church. Frie added that through increased density, the project would meet PliO
goals and would be linancially feasible, but thc neighborhood and St. Ilenry's is a
potential architectural resource and should be preserved and done sensitively to the
neighborhood. They agreed with coming back in Deeelnber with morc dellned plans.
.
JelT O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. noted that the original plan set was submitted
after the Ilrst deadline and staff did respond back with eommcnts. The ncxt plan set came
in after the sccond deadline as welL and with the City Planner out oCthe office aller the
plans were submitted, the report was not prepared until Monday afternoon or this weck.
The Planning Commissioners did not receive this item until Tuesday afternoon and that is
not sufficient time for proper review.
"
- ")-
.
Planning COlllll1issionll1inutes - ] 1/07/0]
O'Neill also added that the one point that cannot be overlooked is the parking/garage
location. I f staff and Planning Commission do not like the parking located across the
street, they should give that direction to the applicant. O'Neill also advised that the
developers have taken staffs input and made changes to their proposal so far, and they do
seem to be willing to work with staff. Grittman had noted previously that he is
comfortable with the density.
Brad Fyle, 501 W.]ill St., asked if the public hearing could be opened and closed, and the
builder could meet with the residents. Don Ooran, 515 Maple St., addressed the Planning
Commission stating he was not comfortable with this being re-zoned to R-3 with
apartments. He is also uncomfortable with not having enough parking spaces and feels
they need 2 stalls even for one bedroom units.
JellCrardner, 500 W. 4th St., asked if this was open for public discussion and Frie stated
that it was not and that the Planning Commission would be taking comments at their
meeting in December when they would hold the public hearing.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION AND
CONTINUE TilE PUBLIC IIlC:ARING ON T~n.: CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT. SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION, TO Till': DECEMBER 4.2001 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDEO TIlE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Public I !carin!.!: - Consideration of a request for a preliminary plat and development stage
planned unit development approval. Applicant: Oualitv Site Design. LLC Scott Dahlke.
Bob Kirmis, NAC, provided the staU rcport advising that Scott Dahlke requested
approval of a Developlnent Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and preliminary plat
to allow the construction of eight townhomes upon a 1.0 acre parcel of land located south
of West Third Street and west of Elm Street. The project received Concept Stage Planned
Unit Development approval this past September subject to a numbcr of conditions.
Kirmis advised that the developn1ent stage plan is consistent with concept plan. Thefe
have however. been some minor modifications which respond to the conditions of the
Concept Plan approval. Kirmis also advised that plan submissions were in accordance
with ordinance requirements, landscaping with modifications were considered acceptable,
and access via a private drive from the south is considered acceptable provided a specific
licensc is issued.
.
With regard to installation of a trail, the site plan illustrated an eight f<Jot wide "future
trail"' south of the private drive. As a condition of [)evelopment Stage PUD approval, the
trail should be constructed in conjunction with the private drive and at the developer's
-4-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/0]
expense.
Building elevations were submitted. The townhome buildings are proposed to be two
stories in height with both hip and gable roof elements. To add visual interest, the front
elevations incorporate brick vencer at the base of the structures. While the front and side
elevations are considered acceptable from an aesthetic viewpoint. some concern exists
regarding the rear clevations of the buildings and their vast, uninterrupted expanses.
Kirmis provided some recommendations for modifications to improve the visual
appearance of the rear elevations such as optional "clipped gables" (to reduce thc visual
scale), varying finish materials (i.e. a brick veneer base) similar to those utilized on the
front elevation are provided, window treatments similar to those used on the front
elevation are provided, and the gabled elements of the facade arc articulated (to avoid the
appearance of a long, uninterrupted expanse of wall).
.
As a condition of Concept Plan PUD approval, it was indicated that sidewalk connections
should be provided on the north and south sides of the eastern townhome building,
connecting the interior "garage court" with Elm Street. In response to this condition, the
site plan has been revised to illustrate a four foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the
building. It was also stipulated that a mailbox structure (fiJr the cight townhome units)
should be erectcd along Elm Street adjacent to a sidewalk. As shown on the site plan, a
mailbox stand has been proposed to the southeast of the townhon1e buildings within the
r,;lm Strect right-of way.
Regarding garbage service, while each individual unit will be responsible for storing its
trash cquipment indoors, garbage pick-up service is to be provided along Elm Street. In
recognition of such pick-up location, it is recommcnded that a hard surface pad (concrete
or bituminous) be provided along Elm Street of a size suitable to accommodate eight
trash cans.
Kirmis also reviewed the preliminary plat advising the propcrty is to be subdivided.
As part of this application, preliminary drainage and utility plans have been submitted.
The plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
It has not been indicated whether any protective covenants are to be applied to the subject
property. If covenants are to be utilized, they shall be subject to rcview by the City
Attorney. Thc applicant will be required to provide appropriate cash contribution for
park and trail dedication. All park dedication contributions shall be consistent with City
policy.
.
O'Neill addcd that due to the fact that Elm St. is a County Road, the County will need to
review prior to final plat approval and signatures.
-5-
.
Planning COl11lllissionl11inutes - 11/07/01
Chair frie opened the public hearing. Scott Dahlke, applicant, addressed the Commission
regarding the request for a trail extension on 4th Street stating he has reservations in
putting in this trail that does not connect to anything at this time. O'Neill added that the
school grounds are public and that this is a logical site for a trail/pathway as it is the most
direct route to the playgrounds, etc. Da\hke statcd he is not opposcd to install a trail in
the future that will conncct to something, but at this time there is a small growth of trees
and a chain link fcnce at the cnd of the proposed trail. O'Neill added that they could
possibly coordinate this trail with the school and possibly remove several trees to create
an openll1g.
Other items Dahlke wanted to address were items 1, 3, and 5, which he felt were
relatively simple, although he stated items 2 and 4 he would like to work on with staff.
Chair Frie asked if this would be ready for final approval in December and O'Neill stated
it would not come back to the Planning Commission but go directly onto the City
Council. The main concern stalThad was that the project looked good from the roadway.
.
The public hearing was then closed. Popilek asked about refuse pickup and O'Neill
stated it should not be an issue as there will be sidewalks and a pad adjacent to the
mailbox stand for 8 units, the only pickup location would he on Elm Street. Popilek was
concerned with people dragging the garbage through snow to get to the pick up spot.
Dragsten stated the proposed trail was an issue with him and his thought was not to have
it there due to safety as there is no lighting in that area. Carlson also felt the trail
installation should be coordinated with the school, and he also felt the rear f~lcade of the
homes should be dressed up.
Development Stage PlJD
^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD SUBJECT TO TIlE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
I. The trail south of the site be constructed in conjunction with the private
drive and at the developer's expense.
! To improve the visual appearance of the rear elevations, the following
modifications arc undertaken:
a) The optional "clipped gables" are utilized (to reduce the visual
scale).
.
b)
Varying finish materials (i.e. a brick veneer base) similar to those
utilized on the front elevation are provided.
-6-
.
Planning COl11lnission lninutcs - 11/07/01
c)
Window treatments simi lar to those used on the front elevation arc
provided.
d)
The gabled clements of the [teade are articulated (to avoid the
appearance of a long, uninterrupted expanse of wall).
e)
Decorative features are provided around the rear patios (i.e. picket
fencing) to both define the space and visually enhance the rear
facades of the bui Idings.
3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the
private driveway licensing requirement.
4. A hard surface pad (concrete or bituminous) be provided along Elm Street
of a size suitable to accommodate eight trash cans.
.
MOTION BASI']) ON THE fiNDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSIST'ENT
WITH TilE COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITI--j EXIS-rING
LAND USES IN THE AREA, IT SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE /,ONING
ORDINANCE, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH TI-jE CITY'S USE OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITII APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND
ARClllTECTURAL DC:SIGN. RICI lARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Frie asked if Mr. Dahlke was aware of item number 4 in the conditions relating to
park and trail dedication and he stated he was.
Preliminary Plat
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT (MORNING GLORY) SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The City approve the Development Stage PUD.
2. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to
drainage and utility issues.
3. If covenants are to be utilized, they shall be subject to review by the City
Attorney.
.
4.
The applicant provide an appropriate cash contribution for park and trail
dedication and the trunk fees consistent with City policy.
-7-
.
Planning COllllllissionlllinlltes - 11/07/01
MOTION BAsr~:J) ON THE FINDINGS THAT TilE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT
WITII THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS COMPATIHLE WITII THE EXISTING
LAND USES IN TilE AREA, IT SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S USE OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. ROY POPILEK SECONDED '1'1 IE MOTION. Motion
carried unanimously.
Jeff O'Neill added that he would talk to the school district regarding the proposed trail.
7. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a prcl iminary plat and a re(juest for a conditional use
permit to allow construction of an automobile dealership in a B-3 district. Applicant:
Gould Brothers Chevrolet, John & Virgil Michaelis.
Bob Kirmis, NAc. provided the staff report regarding Gould Brothers Chevrolet's plans
to construct a new 48,192 square foot automobile dealership upon 10.7 acres of land
located west of Marvin Road betwecn Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road Wcst. To
accommodate the request, approval of a conditional use permit to allow the outdoor sales,
display and storage of automobiles (and light trucks) is necessary.
.
In conjunction with the eonditional use permit request, the applicant has also requcsted
approval of a subdivision to allow the combination of five parcels which comprisc the
subject property into a single lot. The subject parcel is zoncd B-3. Highway Business.
Kirmis advised the Planning Commission of the CUP review criteria, development
proposal, building area, outdoor sales and display, and outdoor storage. Regarding the
existing building, Kirmis advised that the site plan makcs a notation and illustrates that
the existing dealership building located near the center of the site is to remain. While it is
considered reasonable to allow the building to rcmain until shortly after an occupancy
permit has been issued (for the new building), the various plan submissions should bc
revised to depict ultimate sitc conditions incorporating the area prcsently occupied by the
dealership building.
As a condition of CUP approval, the existing building on the property should be removed
by a time designatcd by the Planning Commission which would bc after thc issuance of
the occupancy permit for the new building.
.
Kirmis also discussed off-street parking requirements, landscaping, display ramps, access
which is to be via two points from Chclsea Road West which he advised should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Enginccr; building materials,
building height and lighting. Thc lighting plan will be subject to review and approval by
thc Building Official who will certify that lights have been installed and per/<.mn
according to the submitted lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a
-8-
.
Planning COll1ll1ission rninutes - 11/07/01
certificate of occupancy being issued
Trash handling, existing wetland which overlays the southeast portion of the site, grading,
drainage and utility plans which are subject to rcview and comment by the City Engineer
and have been submitted. Kirmis advised that as part of such review by the Engineer,
specific comment should be made in regard to the need to provide ponding f<.)r the pre-
treatment of stonnwater. Surfacing and signage were also discussed and it was noted that
in lieu of a portion of the building's wall sign allowance, a dealer identification sign has
been proposed along a retaining wall to be constructed along Interstate 94. This is
considered acceptable.
As a condition of CUP approval, all site signage must comply with the applicable
requirements ofthe Ordinance.
.
Kirmis also covered plan review including the applicant's request for a lot combination
stating the lot area requirements and easements, advising that as a condition of
subdivision approval a 20 foot wide easement should be provided along Chelsea Road
West to accomlnodate a future sanitary sewer force main. This issue should be subject to
further comment by the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer should provide
comment as to whether the site's wetland should be protected via drainage easemcnt or
outlot designation.
Chair jo"rie opened thc public hearing. Mr. Skip Sorenson, applicant's architect, addressed
the commission. One issue the applicant was concerned with was item 3 of the
conditions listed in the stafT report stating that the existing building was to be moved no
later than 60 days after the issuance or the occupancy permit for the new building.
Sorenson stated that due to the fact that equipment would have to be moved and a
significant amount of site work done in phase 2, the applicant would ask for leniency on
this item. Staff and Planning Commission discussed possible language that could be
addcd to the conditions that would give thc applicant the opportunity to appeal the
extcnsion date. Kirmis added that in regard to the extension of time to remove the
existing building the Planning Commission should bc cautious in wording this condition
so that they do not have to hold another public hearing for a CUP. Suggested to go ahead
and extend the time frame at this ti me. In regard to signage, the report showed 2 py Ion
signs, but advising that therc will actually be only one on the heeway with the other sign
located on the retaining wall next to the wetland. There would be no pylon sign on
Chelsea Road. only directional signage which would be approximately a 3 fiJot high
monumcnt type.
Conditional use permit.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAC;STEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USI': PERMIT 'If) ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES, DISPLA Y AND
-9-
.
Planning COll1ll1issionll1inutcs - 11/07/01
STORAGE OF AlJTOMOGlLES (AND LIGHT TRUCKS) WITI!IN A B-3 ZONING
DISTRICT SUBJECT TO TIlE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Plan submissions are revised to meet the minimum lot cover requirement of
1 Y% via increase in building size or a decrease in buildable area.
2. No auto body repair activities shall occur on site.
3. The existing building on the property shall be removed no later than June 15,
2003, after the issuance of the occupancy permit for the new building.
4. An adequate off-street parking supply shall be demonstrated by the applicant.
5. Not less than 53 trees meeting the minimum size requirements of the
Ordinance are planted on site.
6. Trees shall be planted along the subject property's east and west side lot lines.
.
7. The elevated display ramps along the site's northern boundary shall be no
higher than three feet in height.
8. Aecess point locations shall be subject to comment and recommendation by
the City Engineer.
9. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Building
Offieial who will certify that lights have been installed and perform according
to the submitted lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a
certificate of occupancy being issued for the proposed dealership building.
10. The trash enclosure shall be relocated to a location less visible from adjacent
rights-of-way as shown on Exhibit K.
II. All automobile sales, display and storage arcas shall be hard surfaced and
provide a perimeter concrete curb.
12. Dcbris within the wetland (resulting from previous site eonstruction work)
shall be removed.
13. The City Engineer provides revicw and COnlll1ent in regard to grading and
drainagc and utility issucs.
.
14. A maximum of two pylon signs meeting Ordinance requirclnents are ercctcd
on site.
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/0 I
15. All site signage comply with applicable Ordinance requirements.
MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS COMPArIBLE WITH EXISTING
LAND USES IN THE AREA, rr WILL NOT HA VE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS AS
OUTLINED IN TilE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION OF TilE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND 'rHE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT IMPOSE ANY UNDUE
BURDEN UPON ANY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. ROY POPILEK
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Plat
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
PLAT CONSOLIDATING THE FIVE PARCELS WIIICH UNDERLIE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY INTO A DEALERSHIP LOP AND OUTLOT RESERVED FOR FUTURE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A plat is submitted illustrating a dealership lot and outlot (reserved fiJr
future commercial devclopment) both of which meet the lninimum area
and width requiremcnts of the ordinance.
2. A 20 foot wide easement is providcd along Chelsea Road West to
accommodate a future sanitary sewcr forcc main.
3. The City Engineer provide COlnment as to whether the site's wetland
should be protected via drainage easement or outlot designation.
MOTION BASED ON TilE FINDINGS THAT 'n IE PROPOSAL MEETS THE LAND
USE GUIDELINES OF TilE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TilE PROJECT WILL
MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES SERVING
THE SITE. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
Public Hcaring - Considcration of a request for an amendmcnt to the zonim.>: ordinance
that would exempt a governmental agency from thc prohibition against barbed wire
fencing or other provisions of the fence ordinance to protect public safety. Applicant:
Citv of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill advised the Planning Commission that at the City Council meeting of
10/22/0 L thc City Council requested that the Planning Commission conduct a public
hearing on a requcst by the Council to allow barbcd wire fencing on top or security fences
guarding public ElCilities.
-11-
.
Planning Commission lninutcs - 11/07/01
In 1998, the City modified its fence ordinance to prohibit the use of barbed wire on the
top of newly installed security fences. This was done for acsthctic purposes in
commercial districts. The topic came up in conjunction with development of Anlax Mini
Storage. Some of the City facilities do have the barbed wire on top of the fencing.
Portions of the Public Works Building are secured with barbed wire, originally installed
by Northern States Power prior to the City purchasing the site. Portions of the
wastewater treatment plan are secured with barbcd wire, as well as Well No.4 out on
Dundas Road.
Approximately two ycars after the above ordinance adoption, the National Guard placed
barbed wirc on top of their sceurity fencing near the community center. This was allowed
because it was our view that Federal Regulations superceded zoning code and it was a
requiremcnt of the CityINational Guard agreement governing community center joint use.
With the recent events, the City has received numcrous e-mails from the American
Waterworks Association and the FBI to secure our utilities and equipment. Therefore.
the staff is requesting that the City Council and Planning Commission take action toward
amending thc ordinancc to allow thc use of barbed wirc on top of fencing for sensitive
government buildings, utilities and equipment sites.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, Amax Mini Storage, stated that he
was concerned with the fact that this item was on the agenda when he was denied this for
his Eleility, stating he felt these ordinances shouldn't be made and then changed. Posusta
added that the City should possibly just eliminate the clause and whcn an applicant makes
a request they can act on it at that time. He states it is a hindrance on his part as a self
storagc owner to not have that added detcrrcnt.
.lefT O'Neill added that the City received notices from a number of state agencics to
secure our f~lCilities and this was the reason for putting this item on the agenda. O'Neill
also stated that thcrc is a significant difference in securing the public's watcr supply and
sccuring a private storage area. If somcone has tampered with the barbed wire securing
the City's water supply it would at least give thc City an indication that something might
be wrong. Frie again advised that this request came down from the Federal Government.
Richard Carlson asked if the intent is to barbed wire evcrything, and O'Neill noted the
intcnt is for thc water supply at this time. Popilek addcd that there is a big difference in
tampering with the City's water supply and tampering with a City vchicle. Posusta stated
that hc fclt if somcone was going to maliciously tamper with the water supply it will
happen.
.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Roy Popilek again added that there is quite a
difTerence between public safety and private security, and again noted that the City has
been asked to do this by the Federal Ciovernment. and it is a uniquc situation. Rod
Dragsten stated that it is important. but that he felt barbed wire fcncing will not dcter
anyonc and if this is a conccrn wc should do lnuch more.
~ 12-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT WITH THE ADDITIONS TO 2.F9, "WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
GOVERNMENT AND PUHLIC FACILITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL". MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO HELP ASSURE THAT IMPORTANT PUBLIC
FACILITIES REMAIN SECURE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Continued Public I-leafing - Consideration of a Concept Plan for a Residential Planned
Unit Development in a PlM Zoning District. Applicant: Shawn Weinand. Ocello, LLC.
.lefT O'Neill advised that originally Shawn Weinand had felt they would be ready for the
November Planning Commission meeting. At the previous meeting of the Planning
Commission this item was tabled pending development of a revised plan for a Residential
Planned Unit Development on a 20 acre parcel north of the Kjellberg East Mobile Home
Parle The applicant had requested a 60 day extension with the thought that the revised
concept plan would be reviewed at the November meeting. Recently, the developer
indicated that work continues on development of a revised concept plan associated with
this request but it is not available at this time. Since it is not certain when the plan will be
completed and due to the tin1e lapse between the original public hearing and the date that
a potential revised plan might be reviewed. it may make sense to deny concept plan
approval. The denial could be issued with suggestion that the applicant will be eligible to
apply again once the details of the new plan are ready. Once the new plan is ready, we
can accept the application and send out a fresh public hearing notice.
As an alternative to this option, the developer may formally withdraw this request which
will save the item from going to the City Council. The developer may also request that
the item be continued to the December meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE TI liS ITEM TO
THE DL-:CEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED TI IE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Discussion regarding lneeting date change fiJr January 1,2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ESTABLISH '1'1 IE PLANNING
COMMISSION MI':I':TING DA Y FOR JANUARY FROM TI-IE FIRST TO JANUARY
~L 2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI IE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
11.
Jay Morrell U!xlate.
Frcd Patch, Building OmciaL statcd that he had previously sent a letter to Morrell and
that Morrcll has since met with Attorncy Dcnnis Dalen. Staffalso sent Morrell the
-13-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
application and since that time, two Planning Commission meeting cycles have passed
with Morrell not sublnitting the application. Staff's next step is to meet with the City
Attorney.
Richard Carlson also added an issue with Bob Danner Trucking asking staff for an
update. O'Neill stated that Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, has followed up on this
and has established a price of the City land and our costs to acquire via condemnation.
Rick sent Danner the letter and is working on getting the deal closed. Negotiations will
probably come between the City Council and Danner.
12. Adjournment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN TI-IE MEETING AT
8:45 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK. Motion carried unanimously.
-._....... mvJ
~+
-14-