Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 06-02-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION June 2 "d, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry v oight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted full quorum and the presence of Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 5h, 2009. Schumann indicated that the May minutes would be provided to the Commission in July. 3. Citizen Comments. ML 63am 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Schumann referenced that the Commission would be asked to approve a resolution as related to the FiberNet application for federal grant funds during this meeting. Chairman Dragsten concurred, stating that it was his intent to add that as item 12 for consideration. Commissioner Gabler also asked for a River Street update. 5. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for an extension of an Interim Use Permit for the Alternative Learning Program located in an 1 -1 (Light Industrial) District. Applicant: Monticello Independent School District Community Development Director Schumann provided the staff report, stating that the Alternative Learning Program is seeking an extension of their interim use permit, which is located in an I -1, Light Industrial district. The original permit was considered for the 1998 -1999 school year. Schumann reported that the IUP was intended to be a short-term permit to ensure that the City's industrial objectives would not be impacted. At the time of the original approval, a number of conditions were applied which, which Schumann reviewed. Schumann reported that the City has extended the interim use permit four times. Each time, there has been discussion related to finding an alternative location for Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 the program in a suitable district. However, with each decision, it was determined that the ALP's impact was minimal to this location and that the applicant was able to meet conditions. Staff believes that the base I -1 zoning is still appropriate. As far as considering an alternative location, Schumann stated that given a pending review of the zoning ordinance, at that time the Commission could consider what the allowed uses for this district should be and relate that back to this particular use. Schuman stated that staff are recommending approval of the permit. Hiigart inquired if there have been any complaints about this use in the three years since last approval. Schumann responded that the City had received none. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. School District Superintendent Jim Johnson addressed the Commission. Johnson indicated that it was his intent to discuss the strength of the ALP program and what it means to the district. He indicated that the public school system is intended and designed to educate the masses. Sometimes not all children fit into that setting. Johnson stated that ALP has been a part of the community for over ten years, with over 150 graduates of the program. Johnson commented that these are students who may not otherwise have graduated, as they don't fit into a traditional school program. Johnson explained that children have different backgrounds and the ALP offers them an alternative that fits their learning style. Research shows that the setting, outside of a school building, contributes to these students' success. Johnson explained that ALP staff are present and could talk more about the strength of the program. He stated that the district does understand that it will need a more permanent location, but the current location is part of its success. Johnson noted that Turning Point has been recognized statewide and that Tom Keating, a long -time teacher at ALP, was recognized as a teacher of the year. He had much to do with success of Monticello program. Gabler asked Johnson to discuss the use of Eastview Elementary. She inquired if it is too much of a school building for this program. Johnson stated that right now, 90% of the Eastview building is utilized with Head Start programs, ECFE programs, another alternative program called Prairie House, and other district programs. Spartz inquired if students are learning trades at the school. ALP teacher Lynn Haldey, 15831 1271 ` Street SE, Becker, spoke to the Commission. She indicated that she has taught at Turning Point since its inception. She stated that built into program is leadership training piece for juniors and seniors. That program is designed to inspire students to go on to continuing education in 4 year and 2 year programs. Spartz clarified that the reason for his question is that trade schools are permitted in the I -1 district. Spartz confirmed that if they are going to learn a trade, they do go outside. Haldey stated that Turning Point provides all of the core curriculum that a high school has to provide. Dragsten inquired how many students use this program. Johnson stated that they currently have about 30 students; their capacity is 44 students. ALP typically averages about 25 -30. Johnson noted that this has changed because of the different options available to students and parents. Dragsten asked if students come from within and outside of the district. Johnson stated that the majority of students are from the district, but open enrollment is allowed. Other communities have put programs in place modeled 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 after Monticello's Turning Point. Dragsten inquired how most students get to the ALP building. Johnson responded that there is bus drop off and pick -up and because of that, less parking is needed now. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE CONTINUES TO RAISE NO ISSUES WITH THE SURROUNDING USERS, AND CONTINUES TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS ABOVE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3 -5, as related to the regulations for Off-Street Parkin Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann reviewed the staff report, stating that staff are bringing this item back to the Commission for another review due to recent activity and concerns. She noted that the Commission worked on this item for quite some time in 2007. Schumann explained that this spring, the City Council approved an amendment to the City Code for public nuisance. The Building Department utilized that ordinance and the zoning ordinance to complete their customary annual spring sweep. Schumann reported that the sweep generated 289 violation notices. Of those notices, 156 written were for off - street parking violations. Of those, 70 were directly related to recreational vehicle parking. For that reason, as well as the number of concerns registered with staff, Council and the Building Department, staff is requesting a secondary review of the off - street parking ordinance back for review. Schumann referred to the areas of primary concern within the ordinance, including: • Permitted locations for recreational vehicle parking • Permitted locations for motorhome vehicle parking (which may or may not be included in recreational vehicle terminology) • Parking surface requirements in the side yard for vehicle parking, including recreational, motorhome and passenger vehicle parking • Rear yard parking restrictions by area Schumann stated that staff that rather than having an open discussion about the ordinance at this meeting, it would be worthwhile to have a workshop- oriented discussion about this topic. This would provide the opportunity to view some examples, view visual scenarios and perhaps talk with residents who got these violation notices. Schumann stated that if Commission were given a piece of paper and asked to interpret the ordinance, each would have a different picture of where parking were allowed. That is due in part to the inconsistencies in clauses of the ordinance, as well as the other items Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 noted. Schumann also noted that in thinking about the arrangement of the ordinance, as with the recent sign ordinance amendment, the parking regulations may need to be more illustrative with diagrams and charts that provide for much clearer interpretation than just text. Dragsten asked if staff is thinking this review should precede the full ordinance revision project. Schumann confirmed. She also clarified that the public nuisance ordinance is a City Code. Off - street parking is a zoning code and so in the past, parking violations were treated differently. Schumann described the new public nuisance process, by which a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow -up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff's Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow -up inspection. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Schumann stated that violations of the zoning ordinance were treated differently in the past. The Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re- inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were eventually sent on to the City Attorney. In the most recent sweep, Schumann reported that all violations were processed in a public nuisance format. Wojchouski asked how many were cited. Schumann stated that about 289, with 156 for off - street parking. She noted that a significant portion of those noticed also complied with the first notice, moving their vehicles. However, a large batch were sent through to Wright County. At that point, staff asked Wright County to cease action on the parking violations. Gabler asked if the Commission was unclear in its direction on surfacing requirements. Schumann affirmed that the stated the minutes actually showed that Commission did talk about what they wanted for surfacing in the side yard and confirmed those requirements. The Council also talked about those requirements and added surfacing types to allow for maximum flexibility. Wojchouski stated that she appreciated getting the images, as they illustrated what some of the issued related to this ordinance were. She indicated that she had some concerns with this ordinance and its impact on personal property. She stated that it can add more costs for homeowners which may not be needed if items are neatly stored. She also noted that in reviewing the ordinance, she had questions on what things meant. Schumann noted that these inconsistencies are an additional concern. The definitions section of Chapter 3 does not include any definitions for "vehicle ", "passenger vehicle ", or "recreational vehicle ". Schumann noted that Council had quite a bit of discussion on the recreational vehicle topic within the last five years and as such, it is likely that as the City considered the 2007 amendments, the focus was on parking surface and location and not the type of vehicle to avoid that issue. Grittman confirmed that was the case. Gabler stated that most violations appear to be boats and trailers. She also questioned if the City is crossing into property owner's rights. Schumann stated that the Commission was very specific in vehicle parking on improved surfaces. Grittman stated that the surfacing requirement is commonly applied because of the potential for blight, grass and 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 weeds, underneath those recreational vehicles. So a neighbor might not complain about a vehicle being parked, but would complain about the property maintenance in that parking area. Voight asked what specifically about the public nuisance code instigated the level of complaints. Schumann answered that it wasn't necessarily complaints, it was just that the public nuisance code inspection and zoning inspection got lumped together for the spring sweep. Voight confirmed that it isn't that the public nuisance and zoning ordinance don't correspond to one another, it was just that the two inspections occurred together and that the zoning ordinance included its own inconsistencies. Schumann agreed. Spartz asked what happened last year, as this off - street parking ordinance was in place last spring. Schumann replied that it was not a problem last year because of the storm, which consumed the Building Departrert's energy. Building Inspector Ron Hackermueller confirmed that the department only completed a small sweep in 2008. Schumann also explained that the 2009 sweep was much more comprehensive due to the new public nuisance ordinance, which now corresponds directly to what Wright County is asking for. Gabler asked if the City is looking at private covenants with the City sweeps. Schumann stated that while the City ordinance may replicate what those private covenants may indicate, the City is not involved in any enforcement on those private documents. Wojchouski asked for a refresher on the two differing processes for public nuisance versus zoning ordinance violations. Schumann reviewed that with a public nuisance violation, a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow -up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff's Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow -up inspection. The Sheriff's Office has the latitude to give the property owner some time to remedy the problem. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Violations of the public nuisance code are misdemeanors. Schumann stated that in the past, violations of the zoning ordinance were typically treated differently. They are still misdemeanors by code. However, with zoning ordinance violations like those for off - street parking, the Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re- inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were sent on to the City Attorney. So, zoning ordinance violations were handled internally for the most part. The City Code has a lot of punch, the Zoning Code hasn't in the past. But in 2009, all those violations got turned over to Wright County. Voight asked where the graphic included in the Planning Commission's packet come from. Schumann stated that NAC had drafted it as part of the 2007 amendment. Voight confirmed that it is not currently in the ordinance. Schumann stated that graphic would be very helpful to actually be included in the ordinance and even expanded upon. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 The Commission briefly discussed various situations involving location of parking and surfacing. Hackenmueller pointed out the inconsistencies related to parking clauses for recreational versus where passenger parking could be located. Schumann clarified that there wasn't anything necessarily out of order in sending the zoning ordinances through to Wright County, but that was not the typical process for the City. She stated that it would be preferable to have as much individual City contact with residents prior to sending it through to the attorney's office in an effort to work with residents. Secondly, she stated that the ordinance is currently such that staff could read it and come to an agreement on what the language intends and how it should be enforced. However, if a resident can't pick it up and be able to understand it clearly, that is a problem. Spartz stated that if there were 156 parking citations, a large number of people who then probably complied. Spartz suggested that there may have also been those that were less clear and need additional consideration. Schumann stated that there is a wide spectrum for consideration of off - street parking situations. Hilgart asked if there are 289 total violations, how many complaints were made. Schumann stated that the volume on the service desk is picking up, now averaging about 4 inquiries a day. Most of those are public nuisance, although she stated that she does not know how many are parking- related. Hilgart stated that although as a neighbor he wouldn't want to look at some of these items, the other point is that this is personal property. There is a need to balance the two. He commented that if there are no complaints, then perhaps it is not a problem. Schumann responded that the ordinance in place may be in concept the ordinance that the City wants. If so, then let's eliminate inconsistencies and add some illustrations to make it crystal clear. Hilgart stated that these types of issues have probably always been there, but it just may be the violation notices that generated the concern. Schumann stated that the large number of parking complaints seem to be related to on- street parking. Gabler asked what type of format Schumann wanted for the workshop. Schumann replied that she would like a more informal workshop setting allowing the Commission to whiteboard their ideas with pictures of specific situations and the opportunity to hear from the public on this issue. Schumann did note that this evening is a public hearing, but a workshop may make people feel more comfortable. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Diane Romano, 131 Hedman Lane, stated that while she understands the intent of the ordinance, but the ordinance itself is hard to understand. She stated that she is trying to get into compliance. She stated that what bothers her is that she would like the City to work with residents rather than have to deal with Wright County. It would be ideal if the Cal Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 City would do everything possible to work with residents until people just absolutely will not comply. Dragsten asked if there should be a longer grace period. Romano said not necessarily, although she did ask for one. She said that her point is that she would like the City to work with residents on how to correct the situation before taking it further. Dragsten asked if there is someone at the City that residents should be talking to about these issues. Schumann stated that it is the Building Department. Hackenmueller stated that is another reason to bring this item back to the Commission, not only to confirm the ordinance standards, but also the enforcement process behind it. Romano asked if all citations had gone to Wright County. Schumann answered that any off - street parking violations that were not recreational vehicle in nature were sent through to Wright County. Hackenmueller and Schumann had met with Deputy Brad Anderson, Monticello's representative, and a hold has been put on all other citations. The County has been very helpful and understands that the City is working through all of this. Romano also noted that due to economic conditions, it is tough for people to make the improvements required by this ordinance. It is a lot to expect of residents. Dragsten stated that although the idea is to keep neighborhoods looking nice, he agreed that the goal is for the City to do its best to work with residents. He cited those concerns as a good reason to take a comprehensive look at this ordinance. Gordy Yaeger, 1205 Sandy Lane, addressed the Commission. Yaeger stated that he has lived in Monticello for 30 years. He has owned a motorhome since 1979. In his situation, his lot is narrow and there is nowhere to put the motorhome behind the property. The motorhome is stored for 7 months out of the year and is often gone during the summer months. He stated that he has never received a citation before this year. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should be based on how items are stored. Rather than one ordinance covering everything, there should be some leeway based on the circumstances. Schumann noted that Grittman had pointed out an important distinction — what is parking and what is storage. That may be critical to how the ordinance language is clarified. In terms of the workshop, she said that it would be ideal if the City Council and Planning Commissioner were all on the same page from the start. The Commissioners briefly discussed a format for the workshop. Hilgart inquired what the maximum width for driveway would be, as it relates to the amount of parking surface available. Grittman responded that the ordinance had been place for some time and is common in many communities. Grittman stated that there is some fluctuation based on the balance for needed parking space and managing the amount of impervious surface and stormwater issues. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 Schumann suggested the alternative Planning Commission meeting date of July 21St, 2009 for a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. She indicated that she would confirm that date by email. 7. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Mills Fleet Farm Addition. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Schumann provided the staff report for the item, stating that on June 12'1', 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 25th, 2007. On June 9th, 2008, the City Council, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, granted the applicant an extension of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat for one year. Schumann explained that due to non -use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat will expire on 9th, 2009. Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant requests a two year extension period. The letter cites the economic conditions as the foundation for this request. She indicated that staff recommends extension of the CUPS and preliminary plat as requested. The Commission has typically granted one year extensions. Commissioner Voight inquired why the applicant had requested two years instead of the traditional one year. Schumann replied that given market conditions and timelines for bringing a project out of the ground, they have requested two years. Spartz stated that it was his recollection that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Schumann stated that the Commission denied the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, but recommended approval of the CUP and preliminary plat. Spartz asked what happens if the property is sold. Schumann replied that the CUP runs with the land and is only valid for the specific purpose outlined by the CUP and PUD. However, the rezoning to B -4 is still valid, unless the City acts to rezone it again. If Mills choose to sell the property, it is zoned commercial. Schumann confirmed that they could sell the property and build a permitted use project there. Spartz stated that he is more comfortable going year by year and reviewing each year by year. Dragsten stated that while he understands that point, for a large commercial project, it takes a long time to get these projects out of the ground. He indicated this preference that the extension be for two years. Hilgart agreed with Commissioner Spartz. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 25TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -1, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. 8. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a drive - through facility in the CCD. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue Schumann reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that Masters 5th Avenue is requesting a second extension of their conditional use permit for the project known as Landmark Square II. Schumann indicated that on September 6th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for Drive - Through Facility, submitted by Masters 5th Avenue. The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permits on September 12th, 2005. Due to non -use, the conditional use permit for PUD would have expired on September 12th, 2006. The applicant requested and was granted a subsequent one -year extension in January of 2008. Although the CUP has again been unused for a period exceeding one year, the applicant is again asking the Commission to consider the extension request. Schumann said that the Landmark Square II development is also subject to a Tax Increment Financing District development plan and agreement. The applicant has less than two years to develop the property under the terms of that agreement. As such, Schumann said that staff would recommend the extension for the conditional use permit be granted for a two year term, or consistent with the TIF agreement timeline. Schumann explained that a timeline concurrent with the TIF agreement gives the applicant a consistent timeline. Spartz asked if Schumann knows the date of the agreement. She replied that she did not. Dragsten asked if the district can be extended. Schumann responded that she did not know if this particular district could be extended given the developments status. Wojchouski noted that the developer is monitoring this district and the prospects for development very closely. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12', 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT PARKING AND DRIVES, AND A DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY FOR MASTERS 5TH AVENUE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THE TIF DISTRICT AGREEMENT TIMELINE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 9. Consideration to review an update to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to Signage for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. Schumann reported that as the Commission is aware, the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District has changed its name to the New River Medical Center. As such, they will be 6 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 adjusting their sign package reflective of that change. She noted that in June, 2008, the City approved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the comprehensive sign plan for the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. Due to this change, the hospital is proposing to change the name on all signage proposed under the comprehensive sign plan. The applicant is proposed no other changes to the signage in terms of size, type or location. As the City cannot regulate content, no amendment is required or needed. However, staff is bringing this item forward to the Planning Commission at the hospital's request. It is for update purposes only. Dragsten noted that no Commission action is necessary. 10. Consideration of an update on the Zoning Ordinance Request for Proposal rp ocess. Schumann reported that the Zoning Ordinance Ad -Hoc Selection Committee met on Tuesday, May 5t' for the purpose of reviewing the ten proposals received for the comprehensive zoning ordinance revision. The goal of the meeting was to narrow the proposals down from ten to three. She stated that during the Ad -Hoc meeting, the group was able to fill the first of the three interview and presentation spots. However, the second and third positions were undecided due to a four way tie in consulting proposals. IEDC representative Don Roberts was unable to attend and would have provided the deciding vote for the final two interview /presentation spots. However, Mr. Roberts was unable to review the four proposals and provide a recommendation due to time constraints. At staff's request, Council liaison Wojchouski was able to review the four proposals and provide a final recommendation on the two open positions. As a result, Schumann indicated that the consulting firms selected to interview and present are: 1. Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) 2. Landform 3. McCombs Frank Roos (MFRA) Schumann requested that the Planning Commission set a date for the interview and presentation by these firms. The interview /presentation meeting will be posted as a public meeting. It is hoped that in addition to the Planning Commission, the balance of Ad -Hoc members and all Council members will be able to attend the interview and presentation session. Staff will notify all Council members directly of the date and time for that session. Schumann also noted that this exercise is being used to gauge the caliber of planning firms in relationship to appointment of a consulting City Planner firm. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO HOLD THE PRESENTATION AND INTERVIEW SESSIONS FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROJECT ON JUNE 14t', 2009, SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONFIRMATION. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 11. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission received a personal invite and brochure with their packets for the Bertram Chain of Lakes event on June 22 nd Schumann reported that in regard to the Development Listening Sessions, staff has compiled the summaries for each of the development listening sessions, along with an executive summary document. The City Administrator is currently reviewing the document. Pending his review, the documents will be published, with a hard copy sent to each Council and Planning Commission member, along with all developer participants. The final document will also be posted online. Hilgart noted that there has been activity at Carlisle Village to better maintain the vacant properties. Schumann explained that Main Street Bank, the financial institution that has guaranteed the development, will be formally taking control of the development's vacant properties in mid -June. The Community Development Director and City Engineer have been working closely with Main Street Bank over the last year, as they also control Sunset Ponds assets. Main Street has proven to be very responsive to on -going needs /issues at both developments. 12. Consideration to review and adopt a resolution in support of a Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant application through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Schumann noted that the resolution is consistent with other resolutions adopted by the City Council and other entities for this project. She also noted that there is a clause specifically related to the Comprehensive Plan and this project's direct relationship to support of Comprehensive Plan objectives. The Commissioners agreed that they were comfortable with the resolution as written with the exception of the clause related to funding, as funding related to the FiberNet project is not within their scope of authority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY COUNCIL'S EFFORTS TO APPLY FOR A BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES OPPORTUNTIIES PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION THROUGH THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMITON ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE LANGUAGE RELATING TO A 20% CITY MATCH BEING STRICKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRED 4 -0. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 13. Consideration of an update on River Street project. Schumann reported that the Council had discussed the River Street item at the last Council 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 meeting. Much public comment was taken. The City Council has asked staff to come back to the City Council with additional information and options. Gabler asked if the Council wanted any input from the Commission. Wojchouski said that it would be welcomed, as would any information that would help the Council make their decision. Hilgart inquired if anything was happening with the downtown theater. Schumann reported that two of the primary property owners on the block are working together. While there has been active discussion and concepts, there is nothing formal proposed for the block at this time. Hilgart noted that Anoka had turned their old movie theater into a community theater. Schumann explained that the Monticello Arts Council had looked at that building, but did not pursue it further for a variety of reasons. 14. Adiourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. kRec—org-- Z�— 12