Planning Commission Minutes 05-06-2014MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 - 6 PM - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann
Absent: Grant Sala
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman, Jay Moore
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
2. Citizen Comments None
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
• Comprehensive Plan amendment (Angela Schumann)
• Fleet Farm update (Charlotte Gabler)
• Council action related to Swan River PUD crosswalk update (Brad Fyle)
4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes — March 0, 2014
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4TH, 2014 REGULAR
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Charlotte Gabler abstained as she had not attended the
meeting.)
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — March 4th, 2014
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4TH, 2014 REGULAR
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0. (Charlotte Gabler abstained as she had not attended the meeting.)
c. Regular Meeting Minutes —April 1St, 2014
The regular meeting minutes for April 1 St, 2014 were unavailable at this time.
5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for conditional use permit for cross -
access and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Cedar Street Retail Addition, a
commercial subdivision in a B -3 (Highway Business) and B -4 (Regional Business)
District. Applicant: Oppidan. Planning Case Number: 2014 -017
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
Steve Grittman reported that the applicant proposed to construct a 17,636 square foot
retail facility with a drive- through drop- off /donation center to be leased to Goodwill. The
development site is proposed to be located at the Cedar Street Retail Addition and is
guided Places to Shop and zoned B -3 (Highway Business District).
Oppidan requested preliminary and final plat approval and a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for cross access /parking. The preliminary plat combines two parcels
(155500142302, 155500142314) and subdivides another (155500142400) to create one
2.64 acre parcel. The remaining portion of the subdivided property would be platted as an
outlot for future development.
Grittman recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to revisions delineating
required perimeter drainage and utility easements, platting of the Cedar Street right -of-
way and Dundas Road easement, and other conditions as noted in Exhibit Z.
Grittman also summarized that the cross access /parking requested meets required CUP
evaluation criteria as outlined in Section 2.4(1))(4)(a) as well as additional conditions of
approval required in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, Subsection G.(2)(iv.). Conditions of approval
are included in Exhibit Z. Grittman pointed out that the cross access /parking between
adjoining business properties will reduce the number of access drives on Cedar Street
enhancing traffic safety and facilitate vehicular circulation on the site.
In response to questions, Grittman noted that the location of this parcel would not
typically be considered an option for R -4 zoning and multi - family housing use. He also
indicated that staff had also initially questioned the proposed location of the drive though
lane on the property but had concluded that the visibility along Highway 25 was not an
aesthetic concern.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Jay Moore, representing Oppidan Investment Company of Minnetonka, described the
non - profit mission of Goodwill and responded to questions. He explained that the
location of the drive through lane is designed to increase the visibility of the donation
center because the store relies on donations as revenue. Moore noted that directional
signage will also be requested to provide for traffic control on the property. He also
acknowledged agreement with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit Z.
As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -048 TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS ACCESS /PARKING BETWEEN
ADJOINING BUSINESS PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
THE RESOLUTION. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4 -0.
2
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions for Approval
Cedar Street Addition
Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking/Access &
Preliminary Plat
1. The final plat must show required drainage and utility easements around the
perimeter of the parcel and such easements shall be dedicated to the city.
2. Encroachment agreements must be filed with the city for all areas where drive
aisles encroach on drainage and utility easements.
3. The final plat shall include the platting of the full right -of -way for Cedar Street.
4. The final plat shall include an easement through Outlot A for Dundas Road.
5. A sidewalk connection must be installed between the northeast drive access and
north property line.
6. A trail connection must be provided from the parking lot to the trail along
Highway 25.
7. Additional landscaping must be provided at the southeast corner of the property to
ensure sufficient screening of the loading area.
8. All landscaped areas must be irrigated.
9. The northeast driveway must be realigned per engineer's requirements; if parking
spaces are removed as a result, a proof of parking area should be designated on
the site.
10. The applicant must obtain approval from easement holders for all proposed tree
and shrub plantings in easement areas.
11. Vehicular use areas on the parcel to the north must meet all required setbacks and
landscaping requirements at such time that development is proposed.
12. Future curb cut access locations between the parcel in question and the adjoining
property to the north shall be subject to review and approval by the city.
13. The proposed utility, grading, drainage, and erosion control plans are subject to
review and comment by the City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with all
recommendations of the City Engineer as provided in the comment letter dated
May 1St, 2014.
14. A shared access and maintenance agreement shall be filed by the adjoining
property owners at such time that the parcel to the north is developed.
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
15. The applicant shall execute a development agreement covering the terms of the
City's Plat and CUP approval.
6. Public Bearing — Consideration of amendment to Title 10, Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 2AM — Specific Review Requirements, Planned Unit
Developments and Section 2.3 (I) relating to written notification for Planned Unit
Development applications, Planning Case Number: 2014 -023
Grittman summarized that, in working through the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
process in place, staff had identified various issues which require further review and
revision. He briefly described ordinance amendments proposed to address these issues.
Staff proposed that written notification requirements for PUD applications be changed to
350 feet to be consistent with statutory notification requirements and all other City land
use application notification requirements.
Other proposed amendments to the text of 2.4(P) are listed below:
P (1) The collaborative process is replaced as moved to the Concept Stage
review - more about this change below.
P (3) Notation related to existing PUDs
P (4) Clarify that PUD may be used in any zoning district.
P (7) Reword the public values discussion as a more generalized example, and
restate the purpose of PUD design.
P (7)(e) /(g) /O) Clearer wording
P (7)(1) Added item to specify that PUD development intensity is intended to
reflect the capacity of the land and services — possibly more, possibly less.
P (8)(b) Deletes the reference to road width as a specific PUD flexibility option —
the City has standard road width requirements based on public safety.
Road width may become an element qualifying for flexibility, but the
applicant should prove it in the design.
P (8)(b) (New) Adds some examples of flexibility by PUD, and makes the
consideration of flexibility discretionary ( "may "), rather than mandatory
( "shall ").
P (9)(a) Eliminates this section on Collaborative process, moving the process and
requirements to the Concept Stage (and partially into the Development
Stage).
P (9)(a) PUD Concept Plan. This text incorporates a role for the collaborative
process at Concept Plan stage, and adds the public values requirements
here. In addition, the neighborhood meeting is specifically made optional.
Further creates a list of requirements or objectives for the Concept Plan,
which includes public hearing and comment. One of the issues raised by
the current code is the creation of a set of objectives for the PUD prior to
public hearing and comment — a potential skirting of zoning requirements
which require public comment opportunity.
P (9)(a)(iii) 4. Adds a requirement that the applicant identify development objectives
0
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
(a part of the collaborative process).
P (9)(a)(iii) 9. Adds a requirement that the applicant identify the areas in which he /she
proposes to vary from the standard zoning requirements as a part of the
application submission.
P (9)(a)(iv) 3. Adds a requirement for a public hearing at the Concept Stage review.
This hearing incorporates public notice into the early stages of the process,
and avoids later claims that the project has been too extensively developed
to change after public comment.
P (9)(b) Renames the Preliminary Plat stage as PUD Development Stage,
Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning. These are three applications being
considered after Concept review has occurred, and establish the working
development rights for the project. Staff had considered removing the plat
language from the code, but instead it is left here, essentially requiring that
PUD projects occur on platted land. The Development Stage PUD plans,
the Preliminary Plat, and the Rezoning to PUD would occur concurrently
at this stage.
P (9)(b)(iv) 3. Incorporates a requirement that staff generates a Public Values
Statement from the Concept Stage discussions, and it is then to be
considered by the Planning Commission (and then City Council) as an
initial part of the Development Stage review.
P (9)(b)(iv) 5. Rewords the findings criteria for internal consistency.
P (9)(b)(iv) 6. Adds note to this process section that directs the staff to prepare a
rezoning ordinance for review, but specifies that rezoning adoption would
be subsequent to Final Stage PUD approval.
P (9)(c) Final Stage PUD and Final Plat — requires conformance with the
Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat approvals, and deletes the
repealer provision on the zoning (since the zoning will not have happened
unless all other approvals are granted).
P (9)(c)(iii) Various clarifications on consistency and requirements.
P (9)(c)(iv) Adds clarification that the Final Stage PUD and Final Plat will be
reviewed and approved by the City Council, rather than the implied staff
review only. Provides that the Council may refer the Final Stage back to
the Planning Commission if appropriate.
P (10)(b) Specifies that a "PUD Adjustment" shall be treated as a change to the
Final PUD and will follow that process.
P (11) Cancellation would occur upon specific findings, including those
identified in this new language.
While many of the issues noted were housekeeping details proposed to refine the PUD
ordinance language for clarity and consistency, several were process related.
The City Attorney had recommended streamlining the current multi -stage PUD
application process to meet the 60 day legal requirement. One significant process related
amendment removes the concept review from the application process. This not only
shortens the PUD timeline but also invites public engagement before decisions are made.
Those who own property within the affected area would receive a concept review
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
meeting notice. The concept review meeting would differ from a public hearing in that no
action would be taken. Staff also proposed amending the PUD ordinance to conduct
processes concurrently as appropriate in view of process timeline requirements.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -049
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2.3 AND
2.4, REVISING THE PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD IN THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION.
ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
7. Public Hearing — Consideration to recommend for the adoption the 2014 City of
Monticello Official Zoning May
Angela Schumann provided an overview of the proposed 2014 City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map and noted the following inclusions:
• Rezoning Actions
• Ordinance #581 - Rezoning 108 Cedar Street from R -2 to CCD, F -2
• Ordinance #589 -Rezoning 101 Chelsea Road from B -2 to B -4
• Special Use Overlay District
o Boundary update
• Shoreland District
• Boundary set by state
• Companion map including shoreland and floodplain boundaries adopted by
reference
• Wild and Scenic Recreational River District
o Boundary set by state
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -047
RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2014 CITY OF MONTICELLO
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, INCLUDING SHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN
COMPANION MAP. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4 -0.
C
Planning Commission Minutes: 5/06/14
8. Consideration of items added to the agenda
Comprehensive Plan amendment (Angela Schumann) — At their April 28"' meeting,
the City Council directed the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing to
consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide a parcel on the northeast
quadrant of County Road 18 and Meadow Oak Avenue from Places to Shop to Places
to Live. This amendment will be included as part of the June commission agenda.
• Fleet Farm update (Charlotte Gabler) — Mills Fleet Farm has been notified that the
two year extension of their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expired in August 2013.
Because Fleet Farm had, however, submitted applications consistent with a final stage
approval, it has a valid PUD which involves an expiration timeline that differs from
that of a CUP. Any substantive changes to the project require a replat and PUD
amendment.
Council action related to Swan River PUD crosswalk update (Brad Fyle) — The City
Council approved locating the crosswalk at the intersection of Maple and 5 '/2 Street
as per the City Engineer's recommendation for pedestrian safety, rather than at mid -
block, as had been proposed. Council also required that turf be utilized from the front
line of the building forward to the street for aesthetic reasons, rather than native
landscaping as had been proposed.
9. Adiournment
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:12 PM. ALAN
HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri -
Approved: July 1, 2014. �
Attest:
Angela SchuyW7, gommunity Development Director
7