Planning Commission Minutes 10-04-2011MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 4,2011 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight and
William Spartz
Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart
staff. Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -NAC
1. Call to order
Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Citizen Comments
None
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
a) Status update on the Holker building
4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of September 6'h & September
20th, 2011
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2011.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20TH,
2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION
CARRIED 4 -0. (BRAD FYLE abstained as he was absent.)
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including
amendments to the official zoning map of the Citv of Monticello. Applicant: City of
Monticello
In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of
the Special Use Overlay District relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning.
Although progress continues to be made on the transition from city ownership to
ownership by the Quarry Church, change in ownership has not yet occurred. Staff
recommended closing the public hearing and tabling action on the item at this time. A
new notice of public hearing will be posted and published at such time when the project
Planning Commission Minutes — 10/04/11
is ready to move forward.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT
UNTIL THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP TAKES PLACE. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development for a multi- tenant commercial development in a B -3 (Highway
Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC
The Planning Commission had tabled action on this extension request at its
regular September meeting due to questions and concerns with the original plan
now that the zoning ordinance had been revised. The Commission indicated an
interest in a discussion with the applicant regarding possible modifications to the
site and building plans to better conform to zoning standards currently in place.
Wayne Elam of Commercial Realty Solutions, representing Cornerstone/DOJO
LLC, indicated that it is the current intent of the property owners to reconfigure
the buildings to better market the properties to Highway 25 and to revise the site
plan accordingly. The applicant requested a six -month extension of the existing
CUP to work on submitting a revised application which would incorporate design
elements to better meet the amended standards as well as a possible request for
rezoning to B -4.
There was some discussion about the importance of maintaining the updated
zoning and performance standards. The Planning Commission determined it
would be appropriate to allow the applicant additional time to address the new
ordinance requirements.
WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE
YEAR OF THE AUGUST 11TH, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI- TENANT
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR DOJO /CORNERSTONE
DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE
APPLICANT IS TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE A REDESIGN UNDER
THE CURRENT B -4 ZONING DESIGNATION; IS TO UTILIZE CURRENT
ZONING ORDINANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; WITH THE
CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS AS
APPLY AS RELEVANT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE.
lt!�<t�<t�►C�7:.: a la
Staff noted that the extension request will go before the City Council for approval
Planning Commission Minutes — 10/04/11
at the October 24th City Council meeting.
Consideration of an Update regarding the Planned Unit Development Ordinance
During the September 20th PUD Workshop Planning Commissioners and Council
members identified a number of items requiring additional clarification within the
newly formatted Planned Unit Development ordinance, as well as process details
they sought to amend.
Listed below is a bullet point listing of these items.
• Minimum PUD Size — 2.4(P)(5)
o Size of PUD — currently requires 8 acres
• PUD Values — 2.4(P)(7)
o Clarify item 0) which requires that PUDs provide a complementary
mix of housing to flexibility to provide such housing for the broader
neighborhood and community, not just within the PUD
• Areas of Flexibility — 2.4(P)(8)
• Create additional language allowing for flexibility in general
performance standards
• Create additional language allowing for flexibility in accommodations
for mixed use, additional uses not outlined by ordinance
• Collaborative Step — 2.4(P)(9)(a)
o Establish two collaborative teams, one for residential and one for
commercial /industrial as follows
• Residential — 2 PC, 2 CC, 1 Parks
• C/I — 2 PC, 2 CC, 1 EDA
o Add language requiring a baseline concept plan developed according
to ordinance as a reference point for team
o Collaborative team will determine whether a neighborhood meeting is
necessary, eliminate mandatory step
• Concept Stage — 2.4(P)(9)(b)
o Clarify that a public hearing is required
• Development Stage — 2.4(P)(c)
o Specify additional plan requirements consistent with previous
development stage application (if not already covered in concept stage)
• Signs
• Lighting
• Elevations /Architecture
• Landscaping
• Amendments 2.4(P)(10)
o Under "Administrative Amendments ", move the statement "other
circumstances not foreseen at the time of the PUD Final Plan was
approved" to the actual "PUD Amendment' area.
City Planner Steve Grittman noted that there were additional aspects of the ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes — 10/04/11
that should be considered prior to final amendment. While he agreed that the
majority of the issues cited are administrative changes, a few changes to the structure
of the ordinance would make it more functional and less confusing. Some examples
of these changes are:
• Change the language about presuming an underlying zoning district to
creating a PUD as the zoning district
• Change the language about including all material in the development contract
to including all material in the PUD ordinance itself so that the requirements
are tied to that piece of property in its own district
• Include the full list of required submissions within each of the various stages
of review
• Clarify the use of the wording for "plat" and "PUD" as each relates to state
statutes
He recommended that the Commission specifically consider item 7, related to
evaluative criteria, and item 8, as well as the membership of the collaborative team,
for further review and policy discussion at the November Planning Commission
meeting. Based on the outcome of the November meeting, staff will prepare a revised
ordinance to be presented at public hearing.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AT THE
REGULAR DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
8. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
a) Status update on the Holker building
The Holker Building and property were not part of the Nicolle Addition
Walgreens redevelopment. The property owners have not been in touch with
City staff about property improvements and are not in violation of code.
b) Verbal Director's Report
Development Status: Staff has invested a significant amount of time in
keeping details of financing and project development moving forward due to
the tentative economic conditions. The Building Department is expected to
exceed revenues from last year and is projecting a 33% increase in the value
of building permits issued. In 2010 the permit value was $9 million. This
year it is expected to be well over $12 million.
Projects Underway: Although there have also been three new residential
home permits, the majority of the work continues to be commercial /industrial.
There is commercial activity in almost every multi- tenant building. Suburban
0
Planning Commission Minutes — 10/04/11
Manufacturing has planned a new facility. Aroplax just completed an
expansion. Ron Hackenmueller noted that the $2.5 million dollar New River
Physicians Clinic remodel is almost complete and that Walmart has begun
work on their $1 million remodel project.
Temporary Signage: Staff noted that, although temporary sign issues
continue to be a challenge, it hasn't been as significant a problem as expected.
Violations are being documented. Business owners will be included in the
discussion as the issue comes up for review in January. There will be an
opportunity for amendment. The Building Department is doing a great job
tracking temporary signage.
Development Cost Survey: The Planning Commission will have an
opportunity to review a Development Cost Survey completed by City of
Ramsey to evaluate how Monticello compares with other communities in
terms of development costs and fees.
Transportation Advisory Committee Progress: Rod Dragsten reported that
the Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed a number of designs for the
Fallon Avenue Overpass. There has been discussion about realignment toward
Washington Street and the possible development of roundabouts to address
traffic on 7`t' Street. Decisions about these matters are a priority and the
project is expected to move forward within the next year.
9. Adiourn
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:47 PM. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Burri AZ
Approved: November 1, 2011
Attest:
Angela S Community Development Director