Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 10-07-2014 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, October 7th, 2014 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order. 2. Citizen Comments. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting – June 3rd, 2014 b. Regular Meeting – August 5th, 2014 5. Consideration to accept resignation of Commissioner Sala. 6. Consideration to reschedule November Planning Commission meeting. 7. Consideration to call for public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, as related to required Land Use Plan Map amendments. 8. Community Development Director’s Report 9. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 - 6 p.m., Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Absent: Alan Heidemann Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Lloyd Hilgart, Steve Grittman 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 None 4. Approval of Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting – April 1st, 24th, 2014 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 1ST, 2014 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. b. Regular Meeting – May 6th, 2014 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 6TH, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. SAM BURVEE FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, changing a parcel from Places to Shop (Commercial) to Places to Live (Residential) Applicant: City of Monticello City Planner Steve Grittman outlined the issues and actions which prompted the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would reguide the 12.7 acre parcel, Outlot A, Monticello Commerce Center Seventh Addition, from commercial to residential land use and establish a specific site to address the emerging multi-family housing need in Monticello. The request meets the criteria for approval for as required by Section 2.4 (A)(5) of the zoning ordinance in that it addresses a changed condition and a community need; is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning ordinance; and is compatible with surrounding land uses and furthers a logical and orderly development pattern of existing land use and infrastructure. Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 2 During their discussion, Commissioner Gabler inquired whether the City could consider a mixed use land use designation for the Comprehensive Plan which could be applied to this property, which would allow a potential user to site both residential and commercial uses on the property. Grittman indicated that in order to do so, the City would need to develop language specific to such mixed use guidance within its Comprehensive Plan, then consider whether it was appropriate for this site. Commissioner Gabler inquired whether the application the City received had included only residential or commercial. Grittman indicated that the application was residential. Grittman explained that at present, mixed use is accommodated primarily with the downtown area. Commissioner Gabler noted that the site could potentially support both uses and that a mixed use guidance could offer the opportunity to leave the northern or western portion of the site for a commercial node, with the southern portion for residential. She stated she is considering how to achieve balance for commercial and residential uses. Grittman noted that the request to re-guide had been initiated by the City Council, but that the property owner through the public hearing had the opportunity to provide comment on whether they would support a commercial or residential designation. Grittman stated that the challenge in preparing the mixed use language would be to distinguish why mixed use would be appropriate to areas outside of the downtown and allowable in more suburban areas. He indicated that if the Commission was inclined to look at mixed use guide planning for some of the transitional areas of the city, that staff could prepare some background in that regard for a future meeting. He suggested, however, that there is probably a reason that commercial activity hasn’t developed on this parcel and it would be less likely to do so if the property were further carved up. Commissioner Gabler also inquired about impacts on sewer and water systems for the areas. Grittman stated that the shift in comprehensive plan designation did note raise any utility issues in staff’s review and could likely reduce demand in some services. Commissioner Gabler inquired about noise issues relative to the interstate. Grittman stated that staff’s understanding is that when MnDOT considers a major expansion project for that section of the interstate, then noise impacts would be considered as part of that project. Commissioner Burvee inquired whether there had been any commercial interest in the subject site. Grittman indicated that he was not aware of any requests for commercial use, and none that had risen to the level of formal application. Commissioner Sala asked if the application submitted was for development of the full subject property. Grittman confirmed his understanding was that it did include the full property, to be developed in phases. Commissioner Sala stated that the development of residential on the site could spur interest in commercial as the project was phased. Commission Chair Fyle explained that he had studied the location of the property and surrounding uses and that he supported the change to residential with the understanding that this could be a location of higher density housing. He noted the presence of the Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 3 ponding on the west and park on east as buffers. Commissioner Burvee noted that during previous Planning Commission and Council workshop and public hearings related to the R-4, the consensus had been not to reguide or rezone property for higher-density residential at that time, but rather to allow an individual applicants or property owners to make a request. The Commissioners noted that this property was discussed as a likely location for higher density residential. Commissioners Sala and Burvee agreed. Commissioner Burvee commented that of all locations within the community that could be possible sites, this site made the most sense in terms of location and surrounding uses. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Grittman noted for the record that Monticello Independent School District Superintendent Jim Johnson and Tim O’Connor, and Xcel Energy Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer for the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants had each submitted a corporate letter of support for the amendment. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-059 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM PLACES TO SHOP TO PLACES TO LIVE. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. In considering land use changes, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require a 4/5 vote of the City Council to proceed. If a rezoning action is eventually considered for the property, a simple majority is necessary to rezone land from commercial to residential zoning. As an advisory body, the Planning Commission may forward its recommendation regardless of vote count. 6. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Schools, K-12 (Monticello Alternative Learning Program/Turning Point) in an IBC (Industrial and Business Campus) District. Applicant: Colosimo, Mike/Monticello Training Center, LLC, Planning Case Number: 2014 - 015 Steve Grittman summarized that the Monticello School District and the owners of the property at 406 East 7th Street had requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a school use within an Industrial and Business Campus (IBC) zoning district. The school’s Alternative Learning Program (ALP) has outgrown its current facility and are looking to lease space in a building which would accommodate future expansion. ALP intends to modify the interior of the west side of the building at the subject site and add a wall sign to the exterior of the building. Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 4 This request meets the criteria for approval as required in Section 2.4(D)(4)(a) in that the conditional use is compatible with existing property use and is without negative impact to property values, development, or existing utilities. Parking supply and storage space available at the proposed site is sufficient to meet code requirements and serve future program expansion needs. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Joel Lundeen, representing the Monticello Public Schools, said that the School District had been looking for a different facility for some time because the program is almost at maximum capacity at the present site. The students are excited about the parking availability. Lundeen said they’d been working with Barb Chafee, Director of Central Minnesota Jobs and Training, making plans to partner with the Workforce Center. He noted that they’d work with the architect to ensure that the wall sign designed by the students meets requirements. As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-058 TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SCHOOL (MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM) IN AN IBC, INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Conditional Use Permit for a K-12 School Use in an IBC, Industrial and Business Campus District, 406 East 7th Street Lauring Hillside Terrace, Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 1. Bus circulation and related drop-off/pick-up activities shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City. 2. Any new site signage shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Sign ordinance and be subject to sign permit. 7. Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for an Outdoor Storage accessory use. Applicant: AMAX Storage, Planning Case Number: 2014 - 025 Steve Grittman presented the request to amend the existing PUD regulating the AMAX Storage facility located at 36 Dundas Road (Lot 1, Block 2) to allow for expansion to the south property line to accommodate the storage, use and display of 12-24 individual temporary storage containers. Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 5 Grittman explained that, because the applicant is interested in acquiring property to the south as it becomes available and expanding storage facility operations at that time, it is reasonable to treat the request as an interim use under the existing PUD. He noted that the applicant requested a 10 year interim use timeframe and proposed to forgo the surfacing and screening improvements commonly required for outdoor storage within the B-3 district. The applicant also asked that there be no setback from the property line. Grittman described the storage containers and provided some detail about the proposed placement on the property between an existing curb line and a block retaining wall to be built near the property boundary. The top portion of the units would be visible to the adjoining agricultural property and north-bound traffic. Future development on the adjoining property would likely block the view of the storage units to north-bound traffic. Grittman briefly reviewed issues related to proposed surface materials, screening, drainage, retaining wall encroachment, and property line considerations and identified the conditions of approval for the PUD as noted in Exhibit Z. Grittman indicated that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and, in combination with future intended changes to the property, and that the interim use under the PUD is justified. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Amax Storage owner Glen Posusta, of 2330 Eastwood Circle, provided additional information related to the request and responded to questions. He noted that the storage facility is 100% occupied and that there is, at this time, no opportunity to expand the facility to surrounding parcels. He indicated that he’d start with 12 storage units and would expand to 24 units if the demand is there. He said that each unit is a well-made steel product which costs over $4,000. He agreed to comply with conditions in Exhibit Z. As there were no other comments, the public hearing was closed. There was some discussion about how to define the containers due to the non-permanent nature of off-site storage. The commissioners asked questions related to the local demand for this type of storage and shared a concern that the containers may sit onsite long term. In regard to the 6’ setback requirement, Grittman stated that it is reasonable under an interim use to forgo the improvement setback at this time and reevaluate the arrangement when a larger expansion of the site occurs. The overall consensus of the commission seemed to be to retain the 6 foot setback from the property line as recommended by staff and to reduce the interim use period to 5 years. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-060 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD APPLICABLE TO THE AMAX STORAGE PLANNED UNIT Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 6 DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 5 YEARS. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION WAS CARRIED 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Amendment to Planned Unit Development Amax Storage, 36 Dundas Road, Lot 1, Block 2, Amax Addition 1. The amendment shall be treated as an interim use under the existing planned unit development for a period not to exceed five (5) years, after which the site will require a new amendment, and be returned to a condition in compliance with all applicable zoning regulations in effect at that time. 2. The applicant shall mark and submit drainage and stormwater plans identifying catch basin elevations and drainage patterns, in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. 3. If the area designated for temporary storage units is vacant for a period of at least twelve months, the amendment shall expire, and the property be returned to a surface in accordance with zoning regulations. 4. No active business or other occupancy may be made of the temporary storage buildings, with the exception of storage, and loading or unloading of said storage. 5. The applicant shall verify the type and material of the current surfacing for the outdoor storage area. The material shall be sufficient to control dust. 6. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement as related to the retaining wall and placement of outdoor storage within the existing southern drainage and utility easement. The proposed storage units shall remain 6’ from the property line. 7. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City specifying the terms of the PUD, including the termination date as agreed to by the City Council. 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapters and Sections as follows. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case Number: 2014-026 Angela Schumann briefly summarized the following proposed amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the amendments are housekeeping in nature and were identified as a result of the zoning code’s daily use and application.  Chapter 2, Section 3 (G) – Pre-Application Conferences o Allows pre-application conferences as an optional meeting and deletes reference to complete applications  Chapter 2, Section 2 (G) – Administrative Adjustments Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 7 o Deletes section entirely as Administrative adjustments are variances and must be treated as such via ordinance requirements  Chapter 2, Section 4 (D) – Conditional Use Permits o Changes expiration and time limits to one year consistent with past ordinance and provides for one year consistency for all sections of the Time Limit provisions  Chapter 3, Section 2 (B), Table 3-1 – Base Zoning Districts o No change proposed; error corrected in previous amendment.  Chapter 3, Section 3 (D) (2) – Allowable Yard Encroachments o Adds reference to conservation easements  Chapter 3, Section 4(F) – R-2 Single and Two-Family Residence District o Re-instates language from the previous zoning ordinance which allowed for varying square footage requirements per unit by unit type in the R-2 District and increases the square footage requirements for duplex, townhome and multi-family units. Schumann noted some corrections would need to be made to the chart prior to finalization of the ordinance for the Council to reflect accurate density calculations and lot width requirements. It was also noted that the requirement for duplex and townhome units should be increased to 7,000 square feet per unit.  Chapter 4, Section 3 (C) – General Requirements for Fences and Walls o Adds a reference to conservation easements as a cue to reviewing staff that conservations easements may exist on a given property and therefore may prohibit structure encroachments  Chapter 4, Section 3 (G) – Prohibited Fences o Simplifies and clarifies code requirement pertaining to fence materials (1) Chicken wire fences.  Chapter 4, Section 5 – Signs o Amends sign ordinance provide to provide clarity related to violations and consistency for specific overlay district In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. Signs shall be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in which the use is allowed.  Chapter 4, Section 8 (F)(2) – Residential District Garage Requirements o Provides consistency with accessory structure standards as identified in each district in Chapter 3  Chapter 4, Section 11(C) – Residential District Requirements o Adds clarification to measurement of façade area for purpose of calculating required brick or stone in the (2) R-1 District and the (2) R-A and T-N Districts  Chapter 5, Section 1 – Use Table, Table 5-1, Uses by District o Removes light industrial uses from commercial B-4 District  Chapter 8, Section 4 o Amends definitions section add clarity to the two office use designations within the 5-1A CCD Use table Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 8 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED, INCLUDING A CHANGE TO THE TABLE IN CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4(F)(2) INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA/UNIT FOR DUPLEX/TWO-FAMILY AND TOWNHOME TO 7,000 SQUARE FEET, CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SERVE TO CLARIFY EXISTING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS, AND SUPPORT CONSISTENCY WITH CURRENT CITY REVIEW PROCESS AND, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE REQUIRED ORDINANCE NO. 599 FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 9. Consideration of analysis related to Interim Ordinance #590, an Interim Ordinance Allowing Places of Public Assembly on a Temporary Basis as a Principal or Accessory Use in a B-3 (Highway Business) District Steve Grittman summarized that the City Council had previously approved an interim ordinance to allow Places of Public Assembly on a temporary basis (as a principal or accessory use) in B-3 (Highway Business) Districts by Interim Use Permit (IUP) and a specific IUP to allow Faith Family Life Center to lease space at the former Cornerstone Chevrolet property located at 3939 Chelsea Road West. Grittman noted that staff had evaluated the potential impact of a policy to consider changes to its land use controls during this interim period. Grittman suggested that adding Places of Public Assembly to the B-3 District would not only expand the potential siting for such uses to much of the Highway 25 corridor but also remove commercial land from the available stock of potential business locations. He indicated that staff do not recommend permanently amending the ordinance because such outcomes conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. There was some discussion about issues surrounding specialized zoning districts and overlay districts designed to accommodate locating religious institutions. Grittman noted that such uses were excluded from the B-3 and B-4 Districts as these districts serve more of a regional than local population. Grittman clarified that, if the City is satisfied with allowing Places of Public Assembly only in the B-2 and CCD Districts, it would not be necessary to amend the ordinance. The interim ordinance and IUP would expire in August if no action were taken. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO DENY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT, TO PERMIT THE CURRENT INTERIM ORDINANCE TO EXPIRE AT THE END OF AUGUST 2014, AND TO DIRECT PREPARATION OF A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH CHARLOTTE GABLER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. (Gabler stated she preferred to amend the zoning ordinance to allow Places of Public Assembly as a conditional use in the B-3 zoning district.) Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 9 Grittman said that allowing the interim ordinance to expire would not preclude bringing a request forward in the future. The Planning Commission recommendation will move forward for City Council consideration. 10. Community Development Director’s Report Variance Request – The Planning Commission asked questions but made no recommendation in response to a recommendation by the Wright County Planning & Zoning staff as related to a request for variance to increase the height and size of a detached structure within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). Bertram Park – The City is scheduled to close on the purchase of Bertram Park property (including the beach at Bertram Lake and the first of the athletic complexes) on June 3rd. Schumann provided an update on grant applications and a proposal to use a portion of the City’s biosolids property. There may be some Comprehensive Plan work to be done to reguide the property to Places to Recreate. 25/75 Intersection Improvements – Staff continue to address issues related to the proposed removal of on-street parking as proposed in the final buildout of intersection improvements from Broadway to Walnut in the downtown. Block 34 – Staff has met with interested developers and will work with EDA to determine the best option for moving forward with downtown redevelopment. Land Use Basics Training – Staff will schedule a special Planning Commission meeting for 4:30 p.m. on July 1st. The purpose of the meeting is to participate in land use basics training. Those who are unable to attend the meeting will have an opportunity to participate in the training individually online. Call for a Public Hearing – Staff explained that Xcel Energy had requested that the Planning Commission expedite review of their upcoming development request. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2014 CONTINGENT ON XCEL ENERGY’S APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Building Department Report – Building Official Ron Hackenmueller will present the annual Building Department report to the City Council at its June 9th meeting. Truck Parking – Staff will look into an ongoing parking issue at Broadway Market. 11. Adjourn CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:21 PM. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes: 6/03/14 10 Recorder: Kerry Burri __ Approved: Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann, Grant Sala Absent: None Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller, Lloyd Hilgart 1. Call to order Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Citizen Comments None 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting – June 3rd, 2014 The minutes for this meeting were not yet available for consideration. b. Regular Meeting – July 1st, 2014 SAM BURVEE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 1ST, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Charlotte Gabler did not vote as she had not attended the meeting.) 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to R-4 (Medium-High Density Residence) District, Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition, Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family Residential in an R-4 (Medium-High Density Residence) District, and Consideration of a request for variance to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H) for required minimum unit square feet in the R-4 (Medium-High Density Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties. Planning Case Number: 2014 – 030 City Planner Steve Grittman summarized that IRET Properties had requested approval to develop a three-story, high-density residential housing project at a parcel described as Outlot A, Monticello Commerce Center Seventh Addition. The 12.7 acre site would be replatted as Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition. The proposed development would involve the construction of a two-phase, 202 unit apartment building. The first phase would consist of 136 units in the first phase and an additional 66 units in the second phase. 2 The request involved consideration of a series of actions including rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to R-4 (Medium-High Density Residence), Preliminary/Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit (to allow multi-family housing in an R-4 District), and Variance (from minimum dwelling unit size requirement of the R-4 District). Grittman stated that the request meets criteria for zoning amendment approval, as per Section 2.4(B)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that it addresses needs arising from changing land use patterns; corrects an inconsistency between the City’s Land Use Plan and zoning map; and is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The site meets the locational criteria of the R-4 District and the lot significantly exceeds with minimum 30,000 square foot base lot area requirement. The property also meets density, setback and green space requirements. The proposed multi-family housing development also meets the criteria required for approval of a conditional use permit in the R-4 District according to Section 2.4(D)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance in that it is not expected to diminish area property values; negatively impact the development potential of the neighboring vacant site; impact natural features; result in nuisance-related impacts or overburden public service capacity. The request meets criteria for approval of a variance from the minimum square foot unit requirement as per Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance in that unique circumstances exist which create practical difficulties for putting the property to a reasonable use should the requirement be strictly applied. Grittman stated that these circumstances relate to the current demand for one bedroom units of varying sizes and the rental cost that the market can bear for high amenity multi-family rental housing. Grittman provided a broad overview of the issues involved in rezoning, preliminary and final plat, conditional use permit and variance actions. He noted that staff had made recommendations related to access, striping, surface parking, landscaping and project phasing and said that these, along with numerous other conditions, were specified in the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit Z. Fyle said he’d like to see the buffer eliminated along the property line and asked if the city could provide overstory trees. Grittman indicated that the buffer yard planting requirement is designed to discourage cutting through the property. Gabler asked if it might be an option to install a paved path in that area. Grittman said it would be difficult to do so because of the topography. Sala asked if there would be signage related to parking. Grittman suggested that might be a consideration of the Parks Commission. 3 Heidemann asked if parking for the athletic fields would impact the overall parking available for the development. Grittman said that parking meets code requirements. Gabler asked why a detached garage structure was needed. Grittman noted that it is counted as covered parking. Gabler also asked if securing terms includes a bond. Grittman indicated that securing all terms of agreement includes improvements to be made and includes a separate surety for landscaping which includes two growing seasons. Lloyd Hilgart wondered if the square footage requirement may have been meant as an average rather a minimum standard when the ordinance was initially established. Grittman said that the code was written to have stiff requirements but noted that he may be right. Grittman pointed out that the applicant had objected to the requirement early in the process. Staff had been reluctant to amend the ordinance without having first applied it and so opted to process the request as a variance to allow for consideration on a case by case basis. Charlotte Gabler asked if it would be an option to reduce the number of 27 units less than 900 square feet in size. The applicant indicated that the unit mix is based on demographic demand and that the trend is to build a higher percentage of one bedrooms units within apartment communities. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Andy Martin, representing IRET Properties, 4150 2nd Street South, St. Cloud, explained that IRET had worked closely with city staff to meet and, in most cases, exceed ordinance requirements for the proposed development. He suggested that the request for variance addresses the intent of the ordinance, enables practical building design and provides more marketable one bedroom options. He pointed out that to increase the unit size would require adding another level to the building. Martin also indicated that IRET had been open to a land dedication option and had already designed a sidewalk to run along the drive lane to accommodate pedestrian traffic from the parking area adjacent to Freeway Fields Park to the sidewalk along Meadow Oak Avenue. He noted, however, that staff had recommended a cross-easement. Fyle said that downsizing was coming back and that the commission may need to redo the minimum unit standard to match up with what the rest of the world is doing. Sam Burvee expressed his concern about deviating from the unit size standard set for the R-4 without giving it a chance to hit the luxury apartment target market. Gabler suggested out that the standards for the district were based on the need to start somewhere two years ago before there was any indication of developer interest. 4 Alan Heidemann indicated that 900 square feet per unit seems large and suggested that the project hits the mark for amenities within the R-4. Gabler noted that she had no problem with the variance request because it provided a chance to review the requirement. She suggested that staff include the issue on a future agenda for further commission consideration. Grant Sala suggested that it made sense to vary the requirement as recommended by the developer in order to rent the property. He agreed that there may be a need to look at the requirement in future. Hilgart stated that the project offers a good variety of unit sizes and that the units are 10% larger on average. He pointed out that amenities and open space had seemed to be the goals of the R-4 District more so than size. He noted that the proposed development has triple the open space and only 60% of the density. Fyle asked about project timing. Martin indicated that IRET is looking to break ground for Phase 1 in the spring of 2015 and open at the end of summer. He noted that IRET anticipates rolling right into Phase 2 and hopes to open that portion of the project next winter. Staff recommended that the applicant submit a site improvement phasing plan. Martin indicated that IRET understands and agrees to the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z. As there were no other comments, the public hearing was closed. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO R-4, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY GRANT SALA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-077 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN AN R-4 DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ALAN HEIDEMANN. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014-077 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IMPOSED IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z), BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH SAM BURVEE VOTING IN OPPOSITION DUE TO IS SUE WITH DEVIATING FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Preliminary/Final Plat (Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning. 2. Easement related issues, as well as right-of-way dedication requirements, shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 3. Submission of all plat drawings updated with the revised survey information. 4. Park dedication requirements shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Parks Commission and Council decision. 5. The applicant enters into a development agreement securing the terms of plat and CUP approval. Conditional Use Permit (to allow multi-family housing in an R-4 District): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning and preliminary/final plat. 2. The westerly access is relocated to avoid conflicts with the church property access to the south, as directed by the City Engineer. 3. The easterly access point includes restriping in the street to properly configure the transition between road width along Meadow Oak Avenue. 4. The central access point is reviewed to ensure adequate site lines for traffic exiting the project, including possible amendments to the landscaping plan if necessary. 5. The landscaping plan is modified to specify topsoil spread over the proposed lawn areas. 6. All landscape areas are irrigated. 7. All other applicable use standards, as identified as part of site plan review, shall be satisfied. 8. The applicant enters into a development agreement securing terms of plat and CUP approval. Variance (from minimum dwelling unit size requirement of the R-4 District): 1. The City approve the requested rezoning, preliminary/final plat and conditional use permit. 2. The average dwelling unit size (in Phases 1 and 2) shall not be less than 900 square feet. 3. In no case shall any one bedroom dwelling unit be less than 600 square feet in size. 6 General Site Plan: 1. The City approve the requested rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit and variance. 2. A phasing plan be provided which provides a plan illustrating Phase 1 site improvements. Such improvements shall include, but may not be limited to, building footprints, amenities, surface parking/drive lanes and grading. 3. The number of uncovered parking stalls upon the site be reduced from 223 stalls to 222 stalls. 4. The applicant considers amending the landscape plan to illustrate plantings around proposed courtyard amenities. 5. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding the placement of trees (Sugar Maple and Mountain Ash) within the 20 foot drainage and utility easement which borders the subject site’s north property line. 6. The applicant provide details related to proposed courtyard amenities including, but not limited to, fence details, sidewalks, landscaping and the timing of such improvements. 7. An internal sidewalk connection from the property to the Meadow Oak sidewalk shall be added to the site plan in a location to be determined based on. 8. The detached garage buildings be finished with materials similar to that used on the principal structure. 9. The applicant provide details related to waste storage/removal and loading activities, subject to City approval. 10. The setback of the proposed monument sign from Meadow Oak Avenue be increased to 15 feet (to satisfy the minimum setback requirement of the Ordinance). 11. The monument sign plan be modified to include a measurable scale (to determine sign area). 12. All signs erected upon the subject site shall be subject to sign permit. 13. The submitted grading and utility plans shall be subject to review comment by the City Engineer. Staff noted that the rezoning, preliminary and final plat and the conditional use permit would come before City Council for consideration on August 25th. The variance does not require City Council approval. 6. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(C) – Variances, subsection (4) Review and (7) Time Limit, and amendment to Chapter 2, Section 4(D) – Conditional Use Permits, subsection (8)Time Limit. Applicant: City of Monticello. Planning Case Number: 2014-041 Steve Grittman summarized that the current language relating to the variance appeal is inconsistent with state law, and unnecessarily limits the process of seeking elected representative consideration of a zoning application or related request. To 7 accommodate the mandates of Mn. Stat. Chapter 462.357, Subd. 6., the proposed ordinance amendment would read as follows: 2.4 (C)(4)(c) Appeal of Variance Decision Decisions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals are final unless the applicant an affected party, including any member of the City Council, files a written appeal outlining the basis for the appeal within ten five (510) business days of the decision. Charlotte Gabler asked if the amendment would apply to the Planning Commission as well. Grittman indicated that that it would apply to all affected parties. A companion amendment related to timeframe was also proposed as follows: 2.4 (C)(7) Time Limit (a) Unless otherwise specified in the Variance, if a Building Permit has not been secured within six months one (1) year of the date of the Variance approval, the Variance shall become invalid. Permitted timeframes do not change with successive owners. (b) Upon written request, one extension of six months one (1) year may be granted by the Community Development Department if the applicant can show good cause. Staff also proposed a housekeeping amendment to reflect the fact that either operation of a use under a conditional use permit approval or building permit request may occur within the one year timeframe. The amendment is as follows: 2.4 (D)(8) Time Limit (b) If the operation of the use and/or issuance of building permits has not commenced within one year of the date of approval, the applicant may petition for an extension of time in which to complete commence the work that has been granted by the Conditional Use Permit. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Community Development Department at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the conditional use permit one year period. Charlotte Gabler asked if this amendment would apply to commercial and residential zoning and if the timeline could be adjusted. Grittman said that the zoning would not matter and that the timeline could be addressed in Exhibit Z. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -078 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 601, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE LIST OF POTENTIAL BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT APPELLANTS, AND CLARIFY TIMING FOR ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL, BASED ON 8 FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALLEN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. Discussion Item – Final Plat, Liberty Park Plat 2 Steve Grittman pointed out that, although the subdivision ordinance does not require that the Planning Commission formally review the Final Plat, Liberty Park Plat 2, the Planning Commission Chair is required to sign the plat upon City Council approval. Grittman briefly recapped the proposed development to provide a bit of background information for the commission’s review. Liberty Park Plat 2 is currently platted as Outlot A of Liberty Park and is being final platted into a legal lot and block. This action will allow for the construction of a new Von Hanson’s facility on vacant property adjacent to the Liberty Bank at County Road 39 and Hart Boulevard. The proposed retail use is permitted in the B-2 (Limited Business) district. Staff will conduct a site plan review to ensure compliance with zoning regulations. No action related to this matter was required. 8. Community Development Director’s Report Semi-Trailer Parking – Staff contacted the realtor responsible for the parcel at Broadway Market in an effort to respond to Charlotte Gabler’s concern about semi- trailer parking in that location. The realtor agreed to handle the situation. Schumann noted that vehicles cannot be stored on a parcel with no principal use. League of MN Cities Training - Planning Commissioners were reminded to review LMC’s online course, “Land Use Basics: Grasping the Ground Rules” in preparation for a follow-up discussion session to be held in September. Market Matching Report - The City Council and EDA both took action to approve a new contract with WSB Market Matching through June 30th, 2015. TAC Update – Staff and WSB representatives met with the Wright County Transportation Committee to discuss alternatives for maintaining on-street parking on West Broadway as part of the intersection improvement project at CSAH 75/TH 25. Staff hope to bring a recommendation to the TAC in the next month or so. Schumann noted the need to keep things moving because federal and state funding for those intersection improvements beginning in 2015. Regional Transportation Planning – Clint Herbst and Tom Perrault have attended two regional transportation meetings on behalf of the City. Meeting minutes can be made available upon approval. 9 I-94 - The I-94 reconstruction project at Monticello is underway. The I-94 Coalition continues to advocate for lane expansion planning. Travelers are invited to sign up for MnDOT email project alerts and report traffic conditions by sending JamGrams. Bedrock Motors - Sam Burvee asked about the status of the Bedrock Motors dealership project. Schumann noted that the business had initiated the online sales component of their business as allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. They have also been making internal improvements and contacted staff to discuss sign permitting to ready the site for used car sales. 8. Adjournment ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:17 PM. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Recorder: Kerry Burri __ Approved: Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 10/07/14 1 5. Consideration to accept resignation of Commissioner Sala. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Staff has received formal notice of the resignation of Planning Commissioner Grant Sala. Staff would like to extend to Mr. Sala our most sincere gratitude for his years of service to the Commission and our congratulations and best wishes on his new position. At this time, the City will begin to actively seeking applicants to fill the vacant seats on the Commission. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to accept the resignation of Commissioner Sala. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resignation Letter Planning Commission and City Council members City of Monticello MN September 15 2014 Board Members please accept this letter as notice of my resignation from my position on the Planning Board affective immediately (September 15, 2014) I have received an offer to serve as a part time Building Inspector here in the City of Monticello. After careful consideration, I realize that this opportunity is to exciting for me to decline. Taking on this new position ends up being a potential conflict of interest and therefore I reluctantly write this letter. It has been a pleasure to serve my community and work with you and this team over the last year and a half or two. Serving on this board has been a highlight in my career and I wish you much success with your upcoming acquisitions. Thanks Grant Sala Planning Commission Agenda – 10/07/14 1 6. Consideration to reschedule November Planning Commission meeting. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Due to the general election occurring on Tuesday, November 4th, no public meetings may be held during the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM. As such, the Planning Commission is asked to take action to reschedule the date of its regular meeting. Options for a rescheduled date are as follows:  Monday, November 3rd  Wednesday, November 5th The meeting time would remain the same at 6:00 PM. The Community Center’s Mississippi Room is available each of these dates. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to reschedule the November regular Planning Commission meeting to ____________________, 2014. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends rescheduling the meeting to Monday, November 3rd in order to minimize delays in the meeting schedule. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Calendar for November, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda – 10/07/14 1 7. Consideration to call for public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, as related to required Land Use Plan Map amendments. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to call for a public hearing during its regular November meeting for the purpose of considering amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan as related to various Land Use Plan Map changes. The proposed amendments are not the result of any pending or proposed land use action or applications. Rather, these amendments are the result of replatting or other parcel split/combination actions in the years since the first land use map was adopted. This will essentially be a housekeeping exercise, but does require Planning Commission and Council review due to the nature of some of the amendments. A sample of one of these amendments is included for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to call for a public hearing for November _________ (date to be determined in Item 6), 2014 for consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, as related to required map amendments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 above. This review is necessary to maintain accuracy in the City’s land use map. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Current Land Use Plan Map B. Proposed Land Use Plan Map C. Example of Pending Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Legend Land Use Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Proposed Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Legend Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Overall Map Hart B l v d Hen i p i n S t E Riv e r S t W B r o a d w a y S t Day t o n S t 3rd St E Wash i n g t o n S t Legend Land Use Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Hart B l v d Hen i p i n S t E Riv e r S t W B r o a d w a y S t Day t o n S t 3rd St E Wash i n g t o n S t Proposed Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Legend Change Area Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Focus Area A Pine S t Wal n u t S t W Riv e r S t E River S t W P i n e S t Pine S t Legend Land Use Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Pine S t Wal n u t S t W Riv e r S t E River S t W P i n e S t Pine S t Proposed Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Legend Change Area Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Focus Area B I-94 7th St Falc o n A v e I-94 Legend Land Use Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure I-94 7th St Falc o n A v e I-94 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Legend Change Area Places to Live Places to Shop Places to Work Places to Recreate Places for Community Downtown Mixed Use Interchange Planning Area Urban Reserve Infrastructure Focus Area C Title Pla ces to Live Pla ces to Shop Pla ces to Work Pla ces toRecreate Downtown Pla ces forCommunity Urban R e serve In frastructure September 25, 2014 Map Pow ered by Da taLink from WSB & Associa tes 1 inch = 94 feet Sourc e: Esri, Dig italG lobe, GeoE ye, i-cubed ,Earths tar Geograph ics, C NES/Airbus D S,USDA , USGS, AEX, G etmapping, A erogrid,IGN, IGP, swiss topo, and the GIS User Planning Commission Agenda — 10/07/14 8. Communitv Development Directors Report. (AS) Rental and Public Nuisance Ordinance Updates The Department of Building Safety and Code Enforcement has been working through possible amendment options to both of these City ordinances. The amendment objectives are as follows: 1. Rental Ordinance: Increase effectiveness of enforcement for "strikes", which are offenses which may lead to the suspension, probation, or revocation of a rental license. 2. Public Nuisance: Reduce the administrative requirements for second and subsequent violations of public nuisance violations for grass and weeds. Council also directed that the length of grass in violation be changed from 6" to 8", with a potential shorter time to correct for the first offense (from 7 days to 5). Staff has received input from the City Council on these ordinances and will be working with the City Attorney and clerk to finalize draft amendments for review and consideration of adoption. To find out more, click on the links above to access the most recent Council reports for these items. Block 34 Update In October, the Monticello EDA will be considering action to move forward with the necessary environmental, structural and TIF -related qualification processes associated with supporting possible future redevelopment of the publicly owned properties on Block 34. The City and/or EDA owns 9 of the 13 parcels on the block; three of these parcels include buildings. The building located directly at the corner of TH 25 and CSAH 75 will need to be demolished to support the intersection improvements anticipated for 2015 at TH 25/CSAR 75. The status of the demolition of the other two buildings will depend on the outcome of the findings analysis. Bertram Chain of Lakes Request for Proposal The City Council has authorized staff to proceed with a request for proposal for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Athletic Park. Staff has begun drafting a preliminary RFP document for the project, which will include both a reaffirmation of the athletic park concept plan (it has been five years since the needs assessment associated with that plan was completed), and a detailed master plan for the full park, including grading, environmental, sustainability, accessibility, and financial components. A Steering Committee including Monticello City Council and Parks Commission representatives, as well as Wright County Board and Bertram Chain of Lakes Planning Commission Agenda — 10/07/14 Advisory Council representatives, will guide the RFP, consultant selection and planning process. Public input will be a required component of the planning process. Regular updates will be provided as the project progresses. Monticello Transit Service On September 22nd, the City Council acted to approve a contract with A+ Taxi for transit services for the community. The Planning Commission may recall that as of September 1, RiverRider transit was no longer providing service. The contract with A+ Taxi is a two-year contract, which will provide for 10 hours of service per day for 52 weeks per year. Fares are set at $2.00 for rides reserved 24 hours or more in advance, and $3.00 for some day rides. More information on this service and the contract can be found by clicking here to access the Council staff report for this item. Transportation Advisory Committee The TAC last met on Septemberl lth, 2014. The group discussed various design configurations for TH 25/CSAR 75 intersection. The consensus of the group was to continue to work with Wright County to preserve parking on both sides of Broadway, while completing improvements in the corridor which would support the configuration for the ultimate design. The initial improvements would not include a dual left turn lanes from west CSAH 75 onto north TH 25, but would be set up to accommodate the dual lefts once redevelopment occurs on West Broadway. At this point, the City is waiting for a Wright County Transportation Committee meeting to be scheduled to discuss the newly updated configurations. The group also discussed progress on planning for the Fallon Avenue overpass. At this time, the City is working with adjacent land owners on land appraisals related to the design for the north side of the overpass. Staff noted to the TAC that as the I-94 Coalition continues to make progress in funding and completing improvements along the I-94 corridor, it will become more important that Monticello identify a location for a west interchange. The TAC therefore recommended that staff prepare an outline for a planning effort for that interchange identification, along with potential study costs. Land Use Training Seminar With the resignation of Commissioner Sala and the election outcome impacts on the Commission and Council unknown at this time, staff is recommending delay on the League land use training workshop for the Commission. After November, a second effort will be made to re-engage the Commission and City Council members in a review workshop. Previous Project Approvals: Status 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/07/14 As Commissioners may be aware, the City -owned communications tower project has commenced, with the majority of the work on the tower structure itself having been completed. ALDI Monticello also held there grand opening on September 25th, while construction on the Goodwill retail store is also moving forward. In regard to the IRET multi -family project, staff and the applicant are continuing to work through plan revisions reflecting conditions of approval and finalization of other development contract items. The Von Hanson's project is also at the same stage, with final development contract items being completed. Monticello Youth Soccer/Old Bowling Alley Property On August 25th, the City Council approved moving forward with a lease agreement with the Monticello River Eagles Soccer.Club for use of the former bowling alley site on Chelsea Road. The agreement allows the club to lease the main portion of the building for their practice and team training. Over the next few months, the team will be completing necessary remediation and repair inside of the building prior to occupancy. The Monticello RESC will pay all expenses relating to remodeling/rehabilitating the interior, as well as all city expenses related to preparing for this use. The lease term is for seven years. To read more about this agreement, please click here. City Meetings: Stay Current For ease of updates on City meetings, an RSS Feed has been implemented on the 2014 City Council Agenda and Minutes pages, as well as Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes pages. Commissioners can use the RSS tool to receive an alert or post (via email or web browser such as Explorer) when these pages are updated. Just a reminder that you can also watch the Council meetings online at http://iiionticello-mn.pegcejitral.com/