Planning Commission Agenda 12-04-2001
.
Members:
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - December 4, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
.
Jeff O'Neill, fred Patch and Steve Grittman
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeti ng held November 7, 2001.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for rezoning l~'om R-2 to R- 3 and
concept plan approval f()f a conditional use permit allowing a planned unit development
in an R-3 district. The planned unit development consists of a 35 unit apartment
complex. Applicant: Church of St 1 Ienry and TC Builders Inc.
6. Consideration of calling for a public hearing to adopt amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding single family residential lot and development standards. Applicant:
City of Monticello.
7. Consideration of a conceptual land use plan proposed as a part of the Comprehensive
Plan Update. Applicant: City of Monticello.
8. Planning Commission members Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek up for re-appointment.
9. Adjournrnent.
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
'Wednesday - November 7, 20(H
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council
Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
Staff:
Robbie Smith
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and City Planner Consultant Bob Kirmis
1. Call to order.
2.
...,
..,.
4.
Chair Dick Frie called the meeting to order at 7 pm and advised that Council Liaison
Herbst would be excusing himself early from the meeting to attend the MOAA meeting.
Aporoval of minutes of the regular meetinQ held October 2. 2001 .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
OCTOBER 2.2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of adding items to the a!.!enda.
. Roy Popilek requested an update regarding Jay Morrell trucking. This was placed
as item 11.
. Chair Frie commented on the 6lh Street and Minnesota Street item that came
before the Planning Commission at their October meeting and commended staff
and the Wright County Sheriffs Depmiment 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
Commission meetings on Channel 12. Kraemer advised that she is still 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. Kracmer will advise at the December meeting.
Citizens comments.
None
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11107/01
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for rezonim>: from R-2 to R-3 and concept
plan apprO\al for a conditional use penTlit allO'vvini2: a planned unit development in an R-3
district. The planned unit development consists of a 35 unit apartment complex.
Applicant: Church of St Henrv and TC Builders Inc.
Bob Kirmis, NAC Planning presented the staff report noting that TC Builders is seeking a
Planned Unit Development approval to convert the former St. Henry's Church building
into a 34 unit rental residential project. Kirmis 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 staff and planning consultant included additional architectural treatments.
The applicants submitted revised plans to illustrate some change to stucco, but not all
areas have been treated consistently.
Staff has suggested that a building conversion of this type should include specific
attention to the architectural character and materials of the bui Iding. As designed, a series
of gables and alternative materials are proposed. Moreover, whereas the original plans
show roof tile to match the original structure, the applicant now indicates that they intend
to use asphalt shingle materials to approximate the color rather than tile.
Also of concern to staff is the oil-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 indicated that
the City Council was seeking two covered parking stalls per unit in new residential PlJD
projects. The applicants had indicated that they would attempt to develop a plan which
illustrated one enclosed stall per bedroom. For the project as designed. this would require
48 enclosed parking stalls. In either case, at least two parking stalls (enclosed and open
surface) are required per unit. The proposed garage plan is 20 spaces short of the 68
space requirement.
Statl had requested the applicant to discuss terms with the contract purchaser of the north
half of the church lot in an effort to develop the parking on the same site. The applicant
has instead submitted the otl-site garage plan. Planning staff would add a consideration
that the l!arai2:e units (wherever located) should rct1ect the architectural character of the
original buildings. This would include both materials 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 Frie opened the public hearing and advised that due to the limited time for review'
of the applicant's plans. he would be recommending that the Planning Commission table
the item and continue to the December 4. 200 I meeting.
Brian Tutt \vith Te Builders and applicant Wade Klick were present. Chair Frie noted 8
concerns with the proposed plan at this time and would like the applicant to have ample
-2-
Planning COll1tllissiol1l11il1utcs ~ 11/07/01
.
time to address them prior to the December meeting. He stated several items such as the
unit count being well bdo\v the number of units required, the use of stucco, off-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 SUppOliive in getting the project
moving ahead, but noted that with a PUD request certain requirements need to be met and
he does 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 \vith concept stage not all information is required at this time. Carlson had the
same concerns as Chair Frie and asked for the status of the property on the north half of
the block and asked if there were any options there.
.
Brian TutL TC Bui Iders. stated that they do not have the North half of the property under
contract at this time. Wade Klick, applicant said the land to the north may be an option
but they have not discussed dollar amounts at this time. Klick also added that the main
concern he has is what the Planning Commission/City staff is looking for from a
residential standpoint. When determined, he could take that information back to the
church and other interested party, and if it works financiaJ1y, they could proceed. Klick
stated they cannot cut back the number of units but if it's a package that ""ould work with
the City, the church, and themselves, as well as the possibility ofTIF assistance, the
project might work, They are looking for direction from the City at this time. They
agreed that parking to the rear would be great if it was tinancially 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 therefore the reason for proposing the parking/garages
at this location.
Klick also asked why they would be required to have 2-car garages for single units as he
doesn't feel it is necessary and would like this clarified. Also would like 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 PU 0
goals and would be tinancially feasible, but the neighborhood and 51. Henry's is a
potential architectural resource and should be preserved and done sensitively to the
neighborhood. They agreed with coming back in December with more defined plans.
.
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, noted that the original plan set was submitted
after the first deadline and staff did respond back with comments. The next plan set came
in alkr the second deadline as welL and with the City Planner out of the oftice alkr the
plans were submitted, the report was not prepared until Monday afternoon of this week.
The Plannin~ Commissioners did not receive this item until Tuesday afternoon and that is
~ .
not sufficient time for proper review.
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes. 11/07/01
O'Neill also added that the one point that cannot be overlooked is the parking/garage
location. If 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 statl's 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, 50 I W. 3'" S1.. asked if the public hearing could be opened and closed, and the
builder could meet with the residents. Don Doran, 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.
Jeff Gardner, 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 ACrION AND
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPtvIENT, SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
INfORMATION, TO THE DECEMBER 4,200 I PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimousl y.
6.
Public (-leafing - Consideration of a request for a preliminarv plat and development stage
planned unit development approval. Applicant: Qualitv Site Design. LLC. Scott Dahlke.
Bob Kinnis. NAC. provided the stafT report advising that Scott Dahlke requested
approval ofa Development 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 number of conditions.
Kirmis advised that the development stage plan is consistent with concept plan. There
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
license is issued.
With regard to installation of a traiL the site plan illustrated an eight foot wide '"future
traij"' south of the private drive. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval. the
trail should be constructed in conjunction 'vvith the private drive and at the developer's
-4-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
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 veneer 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 elevations 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 the 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 llsed on the front
elevation are provided. and the gabled elements of the facade are 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 sOllth 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 (for the eight townhome units)
should be erected along Elm Street adjacent to a sidewalk. As shown on the site plan, a
mailbox stand has been proposed to the southeast of the town home buildings within the
Elm Street right-of way.
Regarding garbage service, while each individual unit will be responsible for storing its
trash equipment indoors. garbage pick-up service is to be provided along Elm Street. In
recognition of such pick-up location. it is recommended that a hard surface pad (concrete
or bituminous) be provided along Elm Street of a size suitable to accommodate eight
trash cans.
Kirmis also revievved the preliminary plat advising the property 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 arc to be applied to the subject
property. If covenants are to be utilized, they shall be subject to revie\\:- by the City
Attorney. The 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 added that due to the fact that Elm St. is a County Road. the County will need to
review' prior to tinal plat approval and signatures.
-5-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Scott Dahlke, applicant, addressed the Commission
regarding the request f(]r 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. Dalhke stated he is not opposed to install a trail in
the future that wi II connect to something, but at this time there is a small growth of trees
and a chain link fence at the end 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 openmg.
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 fix 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 staff had was that the project looked good trom the roadway.
.
lhe public hearing was then closed. Popilek asked about refuse pickup and O'Neill
stated it should not be an issue as there wiII be sidevvalks and a pad adjacent to the
mailbox stand for 8 units, the only pickup location would be 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 facade of the
homes should be dressed up.
Development Stage pun
A MOTION WAS MADF: BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TI--IE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
l. 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 or the rear elevations, the following
moditications are 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 Commission minutes - 11/07/0 I
c)
Window treatments similar to those used on the front elevation are
provided.
d)
The gabled elements of the facade 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 buildings.
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 BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING
LAND USES IN THE 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. RICHARD 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 M(}fION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT (MORNING GLORY) SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDrfIONS:
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 f()r park and trail
dedication and the trunk fees consistent with City policy.
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11107/01
MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING
LAND USES IN THE 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 THE MOTION. Motion
carried unanimously.
Jeff O'Neill added that he would talk to the school district regarding the proposed trail.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminarv plat and a request for a conditional use
permit to allow constmction of an automobile dealership in a B-3 district. Applicant:
Gould Brothers Chevrolet. John & Vin~il 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 between Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road West. To
accommodate the request, approval of a conditional use permit to allow the outdoor sales,
display and storage of automobiles (and light tmcks) is necessary.
In conjunction with the conditional use permit request, the applicant has also requested
approval of a subdivision to allow the combination of five parcels which comprise the
subject property into a single lot. The subject parcel is zoned 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 makes 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 remain until shortly after an occupancy
permit has been issued (for the ne\-v building), the various plan submissions should be
revised to depict ultimate site conditions incorporating the area presently occupied by the
dealership building.
As a condition of CUP approval, the existing building on the property should be removed
by a time designated by the Planning Commission which would be after the issuance of
the occupancy permit for the new building.
Kirmis also discussed off-street parking requirements. landscaping, display ramps. access
whieh is to be via two points from Chelsea Road West which he advised should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer: building materials.
building height and lighting. The lighting plan \vill be subject to rcvie"v and approval by
the Building Otlicial who \vilI certify that lights have been installed and perform
according to the submitted lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a
~8-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 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 review 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 for the pre-
treatment of storm water. 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 of the 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 accommodate 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 easement or
outlot designation.
Chair Frie 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 I isted in the SIaff report stating that the existing building was to be moved no
latcr than 60 days after the issuance of 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
added to the conditions that would give the applicant the opportunity to appeal the
extension date. Kirmis added that in regard to the extension of time to remove the
existing building the Planning Commission should be 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 time. In regard to signagc, the report showed 2 pylon
signs, but advising that there will actually be only one on the freeway \vith 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 foot high
monument type.
Conditional use permit.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOl'vIMEND APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES. DISPLAY AND
~9-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 11/07/01
STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES (AND LIGHT TRUCKS) WITHIN A B-3 ZONING
DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Plan submissions are revised to meet the minimum lot cover requirement of
15% 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 oil-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 \vest side lot lines.
.
7. The elevated display ramps along the site's northern boundary shall be no
higher than three feet in height.
8. Access 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
Official 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-\vay as shown on Exhibit K.
11. All automobile sales. display and storage areas shall be hard surt~lced and
provide a perimeter concrete curb.
12. Debris within the wetland (resulting ti'om previous site construction work)
shall be removed.
13. The City Engineer provides review and comment in regard to grading and
drainage and uti I ity issues.
.
14. A maximum of two pylon signs meeting Ordinance requirements are erected
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 COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING
LAND USES IN THE AREA, IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMP ACTS AS
OUTLINED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND THE 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 WHICH UNDERLIE TI.IE 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 for
future commercial development) both of which meet the minimum area
and width requirements of the ordinance.
2. A 20 foot wide easement is provided along Chelsea Road West to
accommodate a future sanitary sewer force main.
3. The City Engineer provide comment as to whether the site's wetland
should be protected via drainage easement or outlot designation.
MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE LAND
USE GUIDELINES OF THE COMPREI.IENSIVE PLAN AND THE PROJECT WILL
MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES SERVING
THE SITE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion calTied
unanimously.
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance
that would exempt a llovernmental agency from the prohibition a\;winst barbed wire
fencinl? or other provisions of the fence ordinance to protect public safe tv . Applicant:
Citv of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill advised the Planning Commission that at the City Council meeting of
10/22/0], the City Council requested that the Planning Commission conduct a public
hearing on a request by the Council to allow barbed \vire fencing on top of sccurity fences
guarding public facilities.
-11-
.
Planning Commission minutes - 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 aesthetic purposes in
commercial districts. The topic came up in conjunction with development of Amax 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 Pmver prior to the City purchasing the site. Portions of the
wastewater treatment plan are secured with barbed wire, as well as Well No.4 out on
Dundas Road.
Approximately two years after the above ordinance adoption, the National Guard placed
barbed wire on top of their security fencing near the community center. This was allowed
because it was our view that Federal Regulations superceded zoning code and it was a
requirement of the CityINational Guard agreement governing community center joint use.
With the recent events, the City has received numerous e-mails from the American
Waterworks Association and the FBI to secure our utilities and equipment. Therefore,
the stafT is requesting that the City Council and Planning Commission take action toward
amending the ordinance to allow the use of barbed wire on top of fencing for sensitive
government buildings, utilities and equipment sites.
.
Chair hie opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, Amax Mini Storage, stated that he
\vas concerned with the fact that this item was on the agenda when he was denied this for
his facility, stating he felt these ordinances shouldn't be made and then changed. Posusta
added that the City should possibly just eliminate the clause and when an applicant makes
a request they ean act on it at that time. He states it is a hindrance on his part as a self
storage owner to not have that added deterrent.
Jeff O'Neill added that the City received notices from a number of state agencies to
secure our facilities and this was the reason for putting this item on the agenda. O'Neill
also stated that there is a significant difference in securing the public's water supply and
securing a private storage area. If someone has tampered with the barbed wire securing
the City's water supply it would at least give the City an indication that something might
be wrong. Frie again advised that this request came down ham the Federal Government.
Richard Carlson asked if the intent is to barbed wire everything, and O'Neill noted the
intent is for the water supply at this time. Popilek added that there is a big difference in
tampering with the City's water supply and tampering with a City vehicle. Posusta stated
that he felt if someone 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
difference bet\veen public safety and private security, and again noted that the City has
been asked to do this by the Federal Government. and it is a unique situation. Rod
Dragsten stated that it is important. but that he felt barbed wire fencing will not deter
anyone and if this is a concern we should do much more.
-12-
.
.
.
9.
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 PUBLIC 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.
Continued Public Hearing: - Consideration of a Conceot Plan for a Residential Planned
Unit Development in a PZM Zoninl? District. Apolicant: Shawn Weinand. Ocello. LLC.
JefT 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
Park. 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 time 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 THIS ITEM TO
THE DECEMBER MEETING OF TJIE PLANNING COMMISSION. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
IO. Discussion reg:ardin12 meeting: date chan12e for Januarv L 2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ESTABLISH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING DAY FOR JANUAR Y FROM THE FIRST TO JANUARY
8.2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
II.
Jav Morrell Update.
Fred Patch. Bui lding Official, stated that he had previously sent a letter to Morrell and
that Morrell has since met with Attorney Dennis Dalen. Staff also 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 submitting the application. Staffs 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 THE MEETING AT
8:45 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK. Motion carried unanimously.
Recorder
-14-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/04/0 I
5.
Consideration of a Planned Unit Development concept plan to convert the former St.
Henry's Church to a multiple family residential facility. Applicant: TC Builders.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKC]ROUND:
TC Builders is seeking concept PUD approval of a plan to convert the fonner St. Henry's
Church to a multiple family residential complex. The project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission in November, however due to limited review time, the Commission tabled
consideration of the project to December. The applicants have supplemented their proposal
with more dctailed drawings of the garage complex that would be located to the south ofthc
main residential site, across 4th Street on the existing church parking lot.
These two buildings would consist of twenty-four garages each, twelve on each side.
Internal driveways would serve the buildings, leaving the south 100 feet of the lot fi)f future
developmcnt. 'The oiT-site parking has been an issue of concern, both from aesthetic and
functional reasons. However, the applicant was unable to make an acceptable arrangement
with the owner of the north halfofthe St. Henry's building block that would have kept the
parking on the same block. Also, utilizing the existing green space around the buildings
would both fai I to meet the parking demand, and negatively impact the aesthetic value of the
site.
Planning staffbelieves that the off-site parking could work, however, it would need to be tied
to the residential project in a more tangible way. Suggestions would include an improved
crosswalk, perhaps with alternative paving materials, and an architectural feature on the
parking side that mirrors the building design and materials of the former church building.
An emphasis on the use of brick in the garage buildings themselves would add to the
connection. With regard to the garage buildings themselves, the applicant has varied the
facades slightly by creating an articulation of pairs of garage fronts. However, the roof
remains a single continuous roofline, and would likcIy be the dominant view ofthe building.
Staff would add that the roof should be varied as well, in an efllJrt to reflect both the church
architecture, and to create buildings that arc visually more in scale with the residential
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
from an operational standpoint, the applicant is proposing 48 garage units on the site. This
would be approximately one space per bedroom in the complex (there are 34 units and 47
bedrooms, total). The zoning ordinance typically requires two oiT-street parking spaces per
unit, resulting in a standard requirement for 68 spaces. For this plan, all visitor parking
would be accommodated by on-street parking, and it may be likely that some of the tenants
of the f~lcility will also routinely use the on-street spaces near the building entrances from
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/04/0 I
a convcnicnce aspect. Regardless of the pattern of use, staff would recommend that the
parking be required to be "fee-free", that is, included in a tenant's rent. If the parking garage
space were made optional at additional cost, those tenants would be regularly relying on on-
street parking with no alternative, certain to be a problem during winter seasons.
B. ALTERNAfIVl: ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the pun concept plan, based on a finding that the
land use is appropriate for the building and the site, and that more detailed planning
can resolve issues raised by the proposal at the concept stage. This recommendation
should be accompanied by a listing of the design or operational issues to he
addressed or changed by the applicant in subsequent PUD subn1issions.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD concept plan, based on a finding that the
density of the project, the support facilities such as parking, and the architectural
impacts ofthe proposal, are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance's intent for the
use of Planned Unit Development.
"
,) .
Motion to table action on the PUD concept plan, subject to submission of additional
information.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
Stair does not recOll1mend the PU I). Although the applicant has made some changes to the
building design, the addition of several clements (including the dormer gables and use of
new materials) compromises the architecture of the huilding and leaves it less compatihle
with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the parking solutions (including the design
of the garages) is viewed as incompatible with the lower density residential area. Staff
would recommend that if residential uses are proposed for the site, the units be
accommodated with the building without the severe exterior changes, and that parking
garages are designed to enhance the neighborhood, rather than impose on it.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Revised site plans
.
2
.
.
.
L
Planning Commission Agenda 12-04-00
Consideration of callin!! for a public hearin!! to adopt amendments to the Zonine
Ordinance re!!ardine sinele family residential lot and development
standards. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Stall is requesting that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing at its January
meeting to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would address new standards
for single family residential development. The City is considering two sets of potential
changes: one that would address the standards that relate to the existing R-l District, and a
second set that would include the adoption of a new single Llmily district, to be called the
R-1 A District.
For the R-I A District, staff envisions suggesting larger lot dimensional requirements, or
stricter building requirements. The latter requirements would likely include regulations
relating to the percentage of front building line that can be comprised of garage door
exposure, the location of the garage rclative to the living space portion of the structure (e.g.
no more than five feet closer to the street than the house), and requirements fiJr variation in
design fi.)r neighboring houses. Other standards may be included in the proposed
amendment and planning staffis checking with various communities as to the success others
have had with different categories of standards.
The existing R-I District will also be subject to amendment to address issues raised by
current single Lunily home areas.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding single family development districts.
2. Motion to table action on a public hearing, pending additional information.
c. ~rrAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the public hearing be scheduled. Although the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is not yet ready for adoption, these types of changes have been contemplated for
several years, and would be appropriate to consider at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
L
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 12-04-00
Consideration of a conceptual land use plan proposal as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC/JO)
A. REfERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the workshop on comprehcnsive planning held this past fall, stalThas prepared
a eonceptual future land use plan for a large area surrounding the City of Monticello. Staff
has informally dubbed this map the 2050 year plan in that it contemplates land developmcnt
and growth for the near term and growth well beyond both the foreseeable future and beyond
the design capahi lities of the City's current utility services. The 2050 year designation is not
meant to predict an actual time frame, merely to allude to a map that is outside of the City's
usual planning horizons of 20 or 40 years.
The plan incorporates the previous orderly annexation area, and also includes large areas to
the south that have not been part of any prior land use planning. The areas to the South and
West that have always been in the MOAA as "Residential" have been analyzed in more
detail accounting for wetland, power lines and other features resulting in the beginning of
a master plan for the area. Staff has envisioned that this map would help the City plan for
impacts of very long term growth, irrespective of the time table.
The idea behind this map is that the City can develop a reasonable set of growth management
assumptions together with a vision that may be several decades away, but within the
foreseeable future. we can consider development patterns that will lead us toward that end,
presumably with several adjustments along the way.
In developing this preliminary plan. we anticipate and hope for establ ishment ora framework
for decision making that will include township residents. This plan therefore once approved
by the Planning Commission and City Council, will be a starting point for discussions with
township residents and county officials. Our hope would be to develop a unified plan and
development of a mechanism assuring its implementation.
The criteria that are used to define the plan are as follows:
I. The City will continue to seek a new freeway interchange in the northwest
(at Orchard Road), and work toward large areas of industriallcommercial
development adjacent to the freeway to use that interchange.
2. The environmental assets of that area (primarily large stands of mature oak
forest) will be preserved, and development will work around those areas.
3. Lands adjacent to the Silver Springs Golf Course and the YMCA Camp area
will bc set aside for higher-end rcsidential developmcnt, capitalizing on the views
and privacy afforded by those open space amenities.
4. Some of the land currently owned by the YMCA will be programmed for
residential development if desired by the YMCA.
5.
A large area along the current 90th Street, west of the Highway 25 c0l111nercial
corridor will be programmed for a mixed-use, urban village area, including several
types of residential, a central green space, and a small conveniencc retail/office area.
.
.
Planning COIl1Il1 ission Agenda 12-04-00
6.
The land west of the current Kjellberg Mobile Home Park will be
programmed for mid-density attached housing.
7.
The Gold Nugget property will be split between 70% residential on the cast,
and 30% office-warehouse or office-showroom on the west.
8.
The large tracts to the south of 85th Street/County Road 106 will be
programmed for residential, and some urban village mixed use (especially along the
north shore of Pelican Lake). This latter area would include a major open space
along the lake.
9.
The lands to the east of the City will be limited in their development capacity
to provide a reserve of utility (sanitary sewer) capacity, based on operational needs
or the interceptor lines planned an in place serving the area.
10.
Development lands around Monti Club Hill will be assigned to the R-] A
category of single Ltmily development.
11.
The rural, undeveloped character of County] 8 on the southeast, Trunk
Ilighway 25 on the south, and County 39 on the west, will be retained to its current
urban-rural edge. Development will be prohibited within? mile of these corridors
to preserve a feeling of unurbanized landscape as close into the central part of the
cOlllmunity as possible. lhe City will consider developlllent rights credits to
landowners in these corridors to ot1set the development restrictions placed on what
was previously considered to be prime land for residential development.
] 2. The plan will include provisions that will encourage redevelopment of aging
neighborhoods through allowing higher density development under certain
circumstances.
Staff will have a more complete explanation of these ideas at the Planning Commission
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. No action necessary, discussion of concepts only.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking only comment and questions at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
I . Future land use concept.
.
2
~
~
D
3
~
~!
-..J.J
i="2
5~
.I:
~
~ '('
I ':' /"'..
...d.. . 'i )-~
_ \.J.,=~
'r1 t ~ \f\:t i
~ i: ~o ~
ii t i i~~ r ~
~9 0.9 ~ 1~ I
~~ ~~ e~Q~ ~
.Jal jt! 1: ~t ~
~
l
\AI
~
:c
~
8
!
0-
~~ ~
! i ~ ii
~l ~ J~
ltV! :J iO
I ,~'.'"~';./~:~.;.J;
. ::~ ~~~l\
,,~,~'''~';1
", \/.";-
O ~\--""'~"-'" I
.lS,~~~~'
'"'I>.).'t'li". .
w
i
'"
~
()
I tJ I- '.
\,:,;
. . ,"'''',.
I
ii
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/04/01
8.
Plannint! Commission memhers Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek up for re-
appointment. Consideration of recommendation to the City Council on re-
appointment. (.TO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Terms filled by Carlson and Popilek expire this year. If they are interested in continuing
to serve in such fine Llshion, they should let their interest be known and the Planning
Commission should then forward a recommendation to the City Council.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion recommending appointment of Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek to a new
four year term on the Planning Commission.
2.
Motion direeti ng staff to advertise for new members.
This alternative should be selected if one or both orthe members decide not to
continue on the Planning Commission.
C. STAff RECOMMENDATION
StalTrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend re-appointment if the
subject mcmbers arc willing.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None