Planning Commission Minutes 02-06-2008LJ
Commissioners:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 6th, 2008
6:00 PM
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Susie Wojchouski
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien - NAC
Chairman Dragsten noted full quorum and welcomed new Council Liaison Wojchouski.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes of January 2nd, 2008.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 2na'
2008.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda.
Commissioner Hilgart requested that an item titled "Miscellaneous" be added as item 9.
Commissioner Gabler requested that an update on the status of the Mills Fleet Farm be added as
item 10.
Chairman Dragsten added a Comprehensive Plan update as item 11, and update on enforcement
related to commercial vehicle parking as item 12.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Final Plat and a request for Rezoning from B-3
(Highway Business to B-4 (Regional Business) District for the proposed JERRY HARTUNG
ADDITION. Applicant: SB 22, LLC/Mike Krutzig
Planner Holien presented the staff report. She stated that Mike Krutzig had submitted an
application for Final Plat/Replat of Monticello Business Center Second Addition, and a request
for rezoning from B-3, Regional Business to B-4, Highway Business. An additional application
for a CUP for joint access and joint parking was submitted, but has been deemed incomplete.
Holien stated that staff expects that the CUP application will come forward at a later date. As
such, the final plat and rezoning are to be considered independent of any Conditional Use Permits
for future site development.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
Holien described the subject site, indicating that is approximately 3.63 acres in area and is located
east of Highway 25 and west of Cedar Street. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as the
Jerry Hartung Addition.
In terms of the rezoning request, Holien explained that the Comprehensive Plan designates the
site for commercial land uses, and the requested B-4 designation is generally consistent with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Holien commented that while the purpose of the B-3 and B-4
Districts are identical, the B-4 Zoning District allows for a wider variety of commercial uses. All
uses allowed in the B-4 District would again be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site. Holien noted that the property directly east of the site is zoned B-4 and
land to the north of the site and west across Highway 25 is zoned B-3.
No minimum lot width, lot area, or setback requirements apply to the B-4 District. Holien stated
that the proposed lot sizes appear large enough to support commercial uses, as well as the
required landscaping, parking, and drive aisles to accommodate said uses.
Holien commented that curb cut locations have not been illustrated on the proposed plat, but have
been shown on the site plan submitted with the CUP application. The applicant is proposing two
curb cuts on the east side of the site, off Cedar Street. The first curb cut will provide access to
Lot 2. The second will provide access to Lot 1. Each curb cut is proposed at a width of
approximately 30 feet. These access locations comply with the minimum setback requirements.
Internal traffic circulation will be evaluated as part of a future CUP application.
As part of the plat, Holien stated that the applicant has provided right-of--way to accommodate a
potential expansion of Cedar Street on the south side of the property, as it extends to the south
• past Kjellberg's East. As noted on the above chart, the applicant is dedicating 8,743 square feet
ofright-of--way for Cedar Street in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has inquired
about the potential to place parking within this right-of--way with any future development. The
applicant would be required to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the future
extension of Cedar Street and potential encroachments as a condition of approval.
Holien reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and determined that an
additional easement is necessary through the center of the site, over the existing storm sewer. As
a condition of approval, the applicant is required to revise the survey to include this easement, as
deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. No permanent structures maybe placed within said
easement. The applicant shall be required to comply with any additional recommendations of the
City Engineer, as they relate to grading, drainage, and utilities.
Voight inquired why the storm sewer isn't shown on the plat and inquired about the location. Holien
stated that the sewer runs through the center of the proposed Lot 2. Holien noted the applicant is
working with the engineer on a final configuration for the easement. Hilgart asked if the storm sewer
is shown on the original plat. Holien explained that the easement document was created in conjunction
with the placement of the sewer, but was never executed. For that reason, it needs to be shown as part
of this plat.
Hilgart asked for more information on the proposed Cedar Street. Holien responded that the plans for
the future extension of Cedar Street have not been finalized. The configuration shown on the
proposed plat represents the worst case scenario for the future extension. She noted that an assessment
for the extension would be included within the development agreement for the plat.
Hilgart inquired why the City doesn't know what the alignment of the street will be and if the outlot
will only be parking. Schumann indicated that as the property to the south is currently developed and
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
there is no plan for redevelopment of that area at this time, developing firm plans for the alignment are
premature. Different redevelopment patterns will impact the final road alignment. Holien stated that
the outlot area is shown on site plan as parking, but the applicant is not restricted to use it only as
parking. Dragsten noted that the property owner will not be able to put a building on the right-of--way.
Voight asked where the existing cul-de-sac is. Holien illustrated its location.
Spartz stated that based on the site plan presented, the applicant will be requesting a conditional use
permit for joint parking. They are currently requesting a rezoning from B-3 to B-4. Spartz inquired
whether the two districts are different in terms of regulations for shared parking. Holien answered that
as parking is determined by use, not zoning. The final parking requirements do not change. A CUP
will still be needed under B-4.
Gabler noted that site plan proposes a restaurant use. She asked whether the applicant is proposing a
drive through. Holien stated that based on the current site plan, they are not.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Mike Krutzig, 18897 180' Avenue, Big Lake, made himself available for questions.
Dragsten asked Krutzig if he had any problems about the land he will be giving up for platting Cedar
Street. Krutzig stated that he understands this is part of the platting process. Dragsten asked if he is
aware of the conditions listed in the planning report, along with the City Engineer's conditions.
Krutzig replied that he was familiar with both.
Dragsten inquired with regard to platting, if the applicant had thought about preliminary platting and
waiting until the right user to final plat. Krutzig stated that he is very close to signing with a particular
user, but needs the final plat as assurance that they can get the parking they need.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSION VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST
FOR FINAL PLAT AND REZONING FROM B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) TO B-4
(REGIONAL BUSINESS), BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B-4 DISTRICT,
THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS.
1. The applicant shall be required to provide a storm sewer easement through the center of the property,
as determined by the City Engineer. No permanent structures may be located within said easement.
2. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City addressing the future extension of Cedar
Street and associated assessments. Said document shall also address an encroachment agreement for
the storm sewer easement.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
6. Public Hearinu -Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for the proposed UNION
CROSSINGS THIRD ADDITION, a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc.
Planner Holien provided a report on a request by Ryan Companies has applied for Preliminary and
Final Plat approval for Union Crossings Third Addition, a commercial subdivision consisting of three
lots.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
Holien described the site, located south of 7`" Street, west of Highland Way, and east of the St.
Henry's Church property. She stated that the gross area of the site is 3.85 acres and is part of the
existing Union Crossings Planned Unit Development. The site is part of the existing Union
Crossings PUD and therefore, additional applications are expected prior to development. In a
narrative submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the platting has been requested prior to any
applications for Conditional Use Permits or development stage PUD to facilitate the sale of the
lots.
In her analysis of the request, Holien stated that the subject site is guided for commercial land
uses in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned B-4, Regional Business.
The site is currently platted as Outlot C of Union Crossings. The applicant is proposing to plat
the site as Block 1, Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Union Crossings Third Addition. Holien stated that there
are no minimum lot area, lot width, or setback requirements that apply to the B-4 District. No
structures have been sited on the proposed lots.
Holien reported that any future buildings proposed for the site shall be evaluated on their own
merit at the time of development to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate
space for required parking and landscaping. Access to the lots has not been illustrated on the plat
documents. Instead, staff anticipates that access points will be determined as each site develops.
The width of each lot appears adequate to provide a curb cut setback of at least 40 feet from the
intersection of two of more rights-of--way, as required in the Zoning Ordinance.
Holien stated that the applicant is asked to comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer
as they relate to grading, drainage and utilities.
Holien concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the plat.
Gabler asked where Home Depot and Office Max are in relationship to this proposed use.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Steve Broyer of Ryan Companies addressed the Commission as the representative for the applicant.
Voight inquired where the previously approved bank is located relative to the plat. Broyer illustrated
the location of the bank.
Broyer presented a letter from MnDOT, which indicated they had reviewed the proposed plat and had
no comment.
Gabler questioned whether Ryan has prospective tenants for the site. Broyer confirmed that Ryan did
have a fast food restaurant user for one of the sites; the platting will facilitate the land sale.
Dragsten inquired whether Lot 3 was of adequate size and depth to place a building. Holien
commented that the site is zoned B-4, which has no building setback. She said that based on staff
review of the size and depth, a commercial user could function on the site.
Dragsten asked how storm water was being managed. Broyer responded that WSB had worked with
them on storm water. The site has three storm sewer stubs for each lot to convey storm water to the
regional storm pond which serves Union Crossings.
• Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PLAT OF UNION CROSSINGS THIRD ADDITION, SUBJECT TO A FIlVDING THAT THE
PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision a request for Conditional Use
Permit for Joint Access for Prairie Ponds Second Addition a commercial plat in a B-4 (Re ig opal
Business) District. Applicant: Premier Bank
Planner Holien presented the report for the request, indicating that Premier Bank is seeking
approval of a Simple Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access for their property
at 4134 Deegan Court. The property is currently platted as Lot 2, Block 1 of Prairie Ponds
Second Addition.
Holien reported that the subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive
Plan and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a portion of
the lot, which is identified as parcel A on the plans, into a lot of 1.16 acres in area. The parcel
containing the existing bank building, parcel B on the plans, is proposed to be 1.55 acres in area
after the subdivision.
Holien noted that no minimum lot area, lot width or setback requirements apply to the B-4
• District. For references purposes, this information has been provided for the proposed parcels.
No buildings are proposed for Parcel A at this time. She commented that any future buildings
proposed for Parcel A would be evaluated on their own merit at the time of development to
ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space for required parking and
landscaping.
In terms of the Conditional Use Permit, Holien stated that the proposed shared access location is
located approximately 33 feet from the east side lot line. The curb cut between the two parcels is
proposed to be 24 feet in width. No curb currently exists along the property line. Holien
explained that by code. adjoining business properties may share full parking access of more than
24 feet with no curb barrier by Conditional Use Permit, provided that the required landscaping
and island areas within the shared parking lot meet the combined minimum required by
ordinance. In this case, the applicant is proposing shared access, but not shared parking.
According to the original landscape plan for the Premier Bank site, the proposed curb cut for the
shared access will not interfere with any required landscaping on the existing site.
Holien also noted that the ordinance regulating conditional use permit for joint parking requires
that the parking lot meet the setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. The existing
parking lot on Parcel B is consistent with the setback requirements. No parking lot has been
illustrated on Parcel A at this time. Any future parking area on Parcel A will be evaluated on its
own merit at the time of development through the CUP process. Holien stated City Engineer
Westby has reviewed and approved the proposed curb cuts.
Additionally, the ordinance requires that a shared access and maintenance agreement is provided
by the property owners and recorded against all subject properties. Holien stated that while no
• such maintenance agreement has been provided as part of the application, this document will be
5
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
required as a condition of any approval, and would be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
Holien commented that the original site plan for the Premier Bank site illustrates a snow storage area
north of the site, on the proposed Parcel A. The proposed shared drive will cut through this snow
storage location. Holien suggested that the applicant be required to show an alternate snow storage
area on Parcel A, as that site develops.
Holien indicated that a grading and drainage plan was approved for the site with the review of the
Prairie Ponds Second Addition plat. Holien finished her report by stating that staff recommends
approval, subject to conditions as noted in Exhibit Z.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Nick Nowacki, of Meyer Rohlin Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Dragsten asked if Nowacki is familiar with Exhibit Z. Nowacki stated that he is and that he has
discussed the conditions with the bank. They have no issues with the conditions of approval.
Dragsten asked if they have users for the lots. Nowacki stated that the bank just wanted to separate the
lot for business and family reasons, as the bank will continue to own one parcel and the family that
owns the bank will own the other. He stated that Premier is not actively marketing the property, other
than the sign on the site.
Spartz noted that the requirement for an alternate snow storage area was not listed in the Exhibit Z.
• Holien responded that item would fall into the CUP review for the vacant parcel as it develops.
Voight inquired if it is typical to have a designated snow storage area. Holien stated that while the
City hasn't required it to be shown, it was called out here, and it was noted. If the applicant is
counting on it for the purposes of maintenance for their site and circulation, staff would like to see an
alternate area. Voight asked if there would be a curb along the property line area. Holien stated that it
would be required. Voight questioned whether there would there be another curb cut on the cul-de-sac
to provide access. Holien confirmed that they could potentially add one. Voight stated that if they
didn't, circulation could be difficult. He questioned whether there was adequate spacing to add the
curb cut. Holien stated that the driveway setback is determined from property line. The requirement
is 10 feet from side property line. In this case, another curb cut would work.
Dragsten asked if there is any water and sewer information for the site. Schumann clarified that had
been reviewed with the original plat and that the vacant lot does have services. Draggten asked about
lot widths. He cited that the report lists a requirement for 100 feet, and they only have 83. Holien
clarified that originally, staff believed that this site was B-3, which does require a 100 foot lot width.
However, it was found that the zoning is B-4, which has no minimum lot widths.
Spartz confirmed that while there are setbacks for access, there are none for the buildings. Holien
indicated that statement was correct.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REQUEST FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 PRAIRIE PONDS 2rrn
ADDITION AND A CUP FOR SHARED ACCESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4,
• REGIONAL BUSIlVESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
1. Future development of Parcel A shall require full Conditional Use Permit review to ensure compliance
with the proposed CUP for shared access.
2. The applicant shall provide asix-foot drainage and utility easement along the interior property lines of
both parcels.
3. The restoration of any private facilities disrupted due to work within the drainage and utility easement
shall be at the expense of the property owner.
4. The applicant shall provide a shared access and maintenance agreement and record it against all subject
properties.
5. The Subdivision and all necessary easements shall be recorded with the Wright
County Recorder's Office within 100 days of approval.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
8. Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3-5 Off-
Street Parking Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of vehicles parked in
residential districts. Annlicant: City of Monticello
Holien provided the staff report for the request, stating that the item had previously been considered at
the January meeting, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare more research.
Staff had prepared an exhibit regarding length, width and height. That exhibit has been amended to
• include width. Additionally, the staff report has been amended to include information from Public
Works and the City Engineer, who noted that allowing 12,000 pound gross vehicle weight may create
a situation of quicker degradation for Monticello roadways. She noted that consumer vehicles may
already exceed that limit.
Holien explained that in working on a revised report for the Commission, Building and Public Works
staff recommended looking at a license plate regulation. Currently, vehicles of 9,000 pounds or more
are required to have a State license sticker with the letter "E", while 12,000 pound vehicles have an
"F" sticker. The letters increase as the weight gets higher. Holien stated that the letter may also help
with ease of enforcement. She commented that Commission may feel inclined to just include license
plate regulation in lieu of weight.
Holien stated that in terms of emergency response vehicles, if the Commission would like to make an
exception for those types of vehicles, they would still need to meet parking location requirements.
Holien reported that Chief Building Official Anderson would not like to see vehicles in excess of 22'
long. Gabler asked if the Building Department has a width and height limitation they would like to
see. Holien stated that Anderson has only noted length requirement.
DJ Hennessey spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Building Department. Hennessey stated that
Anderson had mentioned length as a personal concern. He noted that when regulating widths, it would
start getting into personal vehicles violation. Heights are something the Building Department would
need to look into, to make sure the regulations don't cut into personal vehicles.
• Dragsten commented that in trying to keep track, it would be nice to have simpler regulation.
Hennessey agreed, noting difficulties with measurements and vehicle weight capacity. He stated that
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
is why the Building Department had suggested the idea of regulating by license plates. As commercial
• vehicles have to register with State, the sticker is a uniform requirement. It is also the easiest to
review for violation without encroaching on personal property.
Dragsten stated that in looking through the materials, it seems like it is more complicated than it needs
to be, that perhaps the sticker may be the easiest to understand and regulate. Dragsten asked who
enforces this ordinance. Hennessey responded that it is the Building Department. He also noted that
the City's current administrative fee ordinance does not include the ability to fine for these types of
violations.
Wojchouski asked what is parking defined as. Holien stated that parking would be determined as
stationary, in other words, stopped is parked.
Wojchosuki asked how these regulations could impact someone who is using a U-haul to move.
Holien stated that they wouldn't be able to leave it parked for a long period of time.
Voight stated that there would need to be some common sense in the application of the ordinance.
Hennessey stated that regulation would also be determined by the intent to store the vehicle, rather
than an incidental or transitory use. Dragsten clarified that it would be regulated if it were a chronic
problem.
Holien noted that there are also other locations available for parking of commercial vehicles. City
staff have been working to provide information on this.
Dragsten stated that the simplest means of regulating seems to be by the letter licensing requirement.
He indicated that the other issue to consider is whether emergency vehicles should be exempt.
Dragsten asked if towing vehicles are currently designated as emergency vehicles. Holien stated that
she doesn't believe they are included in that defmition now. It has been brought up for discussion, but
never formally written in.
Gabler stated that she had been concerned about where tow vehicles could be parked. However, if the
ordinance applies to both on and off street parking, she stated that she felt that tow trucks should be
included within the definition of emergency vehicles.
Hilgart indicated that he had some concern about this regulation, as the large recreational vehicles are
as much of a problem. Schumann responded that staff would prefer to deal with commercial vehicle
regulation first, and then if the Commission chooses, call for a separate hearing on recreational
vehicles. Hennessey also noted that the off street parking ordinance requires that only one recreational
vehicle may be parked in a driveway. Spartz asked if RVs have a similar licensing structure through
the State. Holien stated that she was unsure. Hennessey commented that he believes that RVs have a
separate licensing system.
Hilgart noted that changing the regulation to 12,000 pounds makes it cloudy for him, as there maybe
personal vehicles that exceed that number, although the commercial designation seems to limit that.
He noted the increasing size of passenger vehicles.
Spartz stated that the intent of the amendment is to get an unsightly nuisance out of someone's yard in
an easily enforceable way. However, he noted that affecting someone's livelihood is a concern for
him.
• Gabler asked if those who get violations can appeal. Holien stated that she doesn't know if the
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
administrative portion of the code has a formal appeal process.
i Dragsten commented that some commercial vehicles parked in residential districts also pose a safety
issue; the intent is to get rid of those; especially if the City does offer somewhere else to park them.
Wojchouski recommended that this information should be provided to those who receive violations.
Voight stated that within the code search, Big Lake's ordinance included some language referencing
that "not a resident at residential site", which he believes needs to be added into the amendment.
Holien stated that could be added.
Holien stated that if the Commission chooses, staff could redraft the amendment based on the license
sticker requirement and bring it back in fmal formal for review.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DIRECT THAT STAFF DRAFT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING COMMERICAL VEHICLES 1N RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
• An "F" State license sticker, regulating 12,000 pounds, or greater
• Including language "not a resident at the residential site"
• Including tow trucks as emergency vehicles.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9. Miscellaneous.
. Commissioner Hilgart stated that he has been wondering about the sign issue in relationship to the
Moon Motors decision. He commented that it seems that perhaps the City should eliminate the sign
ordinance and evaluate each request case by case. He also noted a similar concern regarding variance
requests. He stated that his point was that the ordinance is the basis for decisions.
Gabler stated that she agreed with Commissioner Hilgart's concerns. The Commission had denied the
Moon variance and then when appealed, the City Council overruled the Commission. She inquired
what was the purpose of putting City staff through the motions of review if the outcome was pre-
determined.
Holien noted that the City is looking very closely at the sign ordinance and is about to embark on a
complete review and codification of the zoning ordinance.
Dragsten stated that the Commission looks at the sign ordinance every year, and that he believes that
the Commission tries to accommodate new and existing businesses. He noted that the Commission
did recommend amendments in the CCD and the freeway overlay district. Dragsten agreed that it is an
important issue.
Wojchouski responded to Hilgart's concern by referencing Moon's multiple products and the size of
building as Council's rationale for granting the variance. She stated that she thought it was tastefully
done in terms of the use. She suggested that perhaps the City does need to do some re-writing.
Draggten stated that he thinks the point is that the Commission denied the request because there was
no hardship. Moon will have products on display in a very visible way along the interstate, which will
• be seen more than the sign. With all that advertising, they should have been able to stay within the
ordinance.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08
Hilgart commented that the point is not the Moon Motors signage; he doesn't think it was too much.
He stated that the issue is that it is not for him to make the determination to ignore the ordinance. He
stated that the City should go with what the rules say; if not then change the rules. He stated that he
didn't want to ruffle any feathers, but wanted to state his point.
Schumann responded that in terms of the process, and as related to the Moon variance, technically the
proper process would have been to deny the variance, amend the ordinance, allow Moon to come back
and re-apply under the new ordinance. However, in this case, the Council had an appeal, had an
ordinance they found to be out-dated or inappropriate, felt the signage proposed was appropriate for
the use and building and found that to be the hardship.
Spartz stated that he also supported Hilgart's comments. He recommended that based on this
discussion, the sign ordinance needs to come back for amendment.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO AUTHORIZE THAT THE CITY COMMENCE A
REVIEW AND AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING
SIGNAGE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
10. Fleet Farm Update.
Schumann indicated that while Fleet Farm has not made any further requests of the City in terms of
site development or building permit, they have closed on the property and have maintained an interest
in what is occurring within the community. She noted that they had recently requested a copy of the
draft comp plan.
Dragsten asked if they would build this year. Schumann stated that she did not know.
11. Comp Plan.
Schumann reported that HKGi was in the process of reviewing comments from the open house. If
there are significant issues that require review, the Planning Commission and City Council maybe
asked to participate in a special meeting, tentatively set for February 25`x. Commission will be asked
to set a public hearing date for the review of the comp plan at March's meeting for April.
12. Enforcement Item -Commercial Vehicles.
Schumann reported that the Building Department had acted immediately in response to Commission's
concerns about commercial vehicle parking on Golf Course Road. A letter related to the violation was
sent. The Department will be following up on action resulting from the notice of violation.
13. Adiourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
10