Planning Commission Minutes 06-06-2017MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 611, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson
Absent: Lucas Wynne
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Jacob Thunander, John Rued
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chairman Brad Fyle called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes — May 2nd, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 2ND, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — May 2,d 2017
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 2ND, 2017. MARC SIMPSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning to
Planned Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair — Minor, and
Accessory Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC
Angela Schumann explained that the applicant, FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC,
submitted a written request to table action of their item. They will be submitting
additional materials for review at the July Planning Commission Meeting.
Brad Fyle asked if there was a time limit for tabling action on a Public Hearing.
Schumann indicated that the City is subject to the State Statute rule of 60 days,
unless the applicant submits a written request to extend the deadline, which they
have for this application.
Fyle opened the public hearing and asked for a motion to come forward to
continue the public hearing to the July Planning Commission Meeting.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
JULY MEETING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional
Use Permit for Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development for
entrance and building additions in a B-2 (Limited Business) District
Applicant: Lemke, Lenore — CentraCare Health Monticello
Angela Schumann indicated that the applicant, CentraCare Health Monticello, has
proposed two expansion phases to the existing building. The first phase would
include a remodel of the hospital entrance with a new canopy. The second phase
includes the addition of an MRI unit and the relocation of an ambulance garage.
The development would be on an area that is located on the south side of the
building, where impervious surface or building already exists.
Schumann indicated that the area is guided "Places for Community" per the
Comprehensive Plan and zoned B-2 (Limited Business District), with Shoreland
and Wild and Scenic Districts. Over time, there have been several amendments to
the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) through Conditional Use Permits
(CUP) for improvements over time. The total expansion area would be just under
one acre, with a total of fourteen acres.
Schumann provided the CUP/PUD criteria for which the analysis was provided to
the Planning Commission. The hope was to complete the first phase in mid-
November, which would include a reconfiguration of the entrance drive area and
the construction of the canopy. The hospital will also be making interior changes
to the building in concert with the exterior changes to with flow throughout the
site. The second phase would be completed no later than spring of 2018 to include
a two bay ambulance garage (1765 square feet) to allow the ambulances to
circulate and pull through rather than backing up. A proposed MRI facility would
be constructed during the second phase and located in an existing alcove of the
building.
No proposed changes would occur to the access from Broadway Street, however
there would be a loss of two parking stalls and the need to maintain ADA
compliance. Sidewalk and crossing improvements were also proposed.
Schumann indicated that the City Engineer supplied a comment letter that stated
the applicant continue to coordinate the location of a hydrant with the Water
Superintendent.
Schumann stated that the landscaping plan exceeds the code except for the `island
delineator' requirements. They also were compliant with the photometric
requirements from the zoning ordinance, but verification of the pole height and
any wall pack lighting should be noted to the City.
2
The applicant had indicated in their narrative that they will propose new signage,
Schumann requested the applicant to provide detailed sign plans with the final
PUD approval.
The proposed building design consists of a variety of architectural metal and
brick, consistent with the existing building. City Staff have asked the applicant to
revise their plans to show the building materials for the east side of the MRI
building. Aluminum doors are proposed for the ambulance garage and the MRI
building, with which landscaping would blend the area.
Staff recommend approval of the requests subject to Exhibit Z comments.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Lenore Lemke, CentraCare Health Monticello, explained their excitement for the
proposed changes and indicated that they wanted people to easily know where the
entrances would be for the hospital and emergency room. She explained both
phases of the project, which would improve the experience and care of patients in
Monticello and the surrounding area.
Fyle asked if the applicant reviewed the comments addressed in Exhibit Z. Lemke
responded that with no concerns with compliance.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed by Fyle.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the proposed improvements along with the previous
approved helicopter pad would affect their parking counts. Schumann responded
that with the PUD there was flexibility to parking requirements, but ample
parking would still exist.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #PC -2017-009
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR CENTRACARE HEALTH MONTICELLO,
CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION AND THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z.
MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD
Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Big Lake Hospital District Campus.
1. Verify materials for exposed wall on east side of the MRI facility.
Materials shall be consistent and compatible with the other materials
proposed.
2. Revise landscaping plan to meet requirements for island delineator
plantings.
3. Applicant shall provide a conceptual wall and free-standing signage plan
prior to final stage review by the City Council.
4. Applicant shall provide a certificate of survey for building permit
submittal.
5. Provide specification detail for lighting fixtures to demonstrate
compliance with Chapter 4, Section 4 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
6. Applicant shall enter into an amendment to development agreement as
may be required for the proposed amendment.
7. Comments of other City Staff, including those within the City Engineer's
letter dated May 31, 2017.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of request for Amendment to Mills Fleet
Farm Planned Unit Development for Proposed changes to signage
Applicant: Ramerth, Tim - Widseth Smith Nolting
Angela Schumann stated that the applicant, WSN, previously received approval
for the Mills Fleet Farm Planned Unit Development in 2016. The applicant is
seeking to amend the PUD to accommodate various changes to their original
signage package.
Schumann indicated that one of the signs along the Chelsea Road side of the retail
building is proposed to be converted to a digital message board, which is a slight
increase in size from the original approval. The second proposal is for two canopy
signs for a kerosene island. Lastly, the size and area of the signs on the pylon sign
is proposed to change from 199 square feet to 286 square feet. Schumann noted
that the square footage increase was based per side.
Schumann stated that a sign permit has been previously received from the
applicant for a bulk of the wall signs and the footings and foundation for the
monument and pylon. The overall structure and locations of the monument and
pylon locations were not changing.
The bulk of the increase on the pylon sign was proposed for the gas pricing (139
square feet) portion for greater visibility.
Schumann indicated that the applicant is located in the Freeway Bonus District
and owns four separate lots. This would allow them to have four separate
freestanding 200 square foot signs. Instead the applicant has consolidated their
signage to include one monument and one pylon sign on all four sites.
0
Schumann stated the total wall signage at Mills Fleet Farm was at six percent,
with the code allowing up to fifteen percent. The applicant proposed an increase
of 49 square feet, which would not change the six percent of wall signage
significantly. It was noted that three digital message boards would be on the site.
Staff recommended approval of the application.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the pylon sign needed MnDOT approval. Schumann
stated that it required MnDOT review.
Brad Fyle opened public hearing.
Tim Ramerth, WSN, explained that the area for the proposed digital messaging
board on the retail building was originally approved to have a round wall sign for
rentals. Ramerth said that Mills Fleet Farm has since moved away from rentals
and has been converting these areas to digital messaging boards at other locations.
Ramerth also explained the background of the pylon sign and the reason for the
increase in the gas price lettering.
Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing.
Fyle asked the applicant if he reviewed the Exhibit Z comments. Ramerth
confirmed and added that MnDOT considers this a non -premise sign and thus
gives authority to the city.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017- 010,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MILLS
FLEET FARM PUD ORDINANCE FOR SIGN ALLOWANCES, PER THE
SUBMITTED PLANS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION,
AND INCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF
REPORT. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Mills Fleet Farm
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, Mills Fleet Farm Addition
1. Additional freestanding signs proposed for Outlot A and for Lot 1, Block 2
shall be of monument style only, consistent with the requirements of the sign
regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and subject to an amendment
to PUD at the time of development.
2. The applicant shall verify that the proposed signage is permissible per
MnDOT and/or FWHA requirements based on the current plat and right of
way configuration.
5
3. Comments of other City Staff and Planning Commission.
D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and
Preliminary Plat for Spaeth Industrial Park for a multi -lot industrial
development in an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District.
Applicant: Spaeth, Ken
Angela Schumann indicated that the zoning designation under the proposed PUD
for the industrial development project is I-2 (Heavy Industrial) and is located in
Oakwood Industrial Park. Schumann reminded the Planning Commission that a
joint meeting with the City Council occurred in April to discuss and provide
preliminary comment on a concept stage PUD submittal.
Schumann indicated that a PUD is necessary because of the proposed eight lots
gaining access from a private street. Two of the lots would face Dundas Road,
whereas the remaining six lots would not face a public street and rely on private
access. On each lot, a building would be constructed with an impervious surface
surrounding including a parking base in the fronts of buildings and a truck court
in the rear of the building. The applicant expects to attract similar industrial uses
typically found in the I-2 zoning district such as office, fabrication, repair,
warehousing, and limited space for showroom.
Schumann stated these examples of businesses would not attract a large on-site
customer base. The proposal for a majority of the buildings includes twelve
spaces for parking. Staff requests having no outdoor storage and for trash
handling to occur internally to keep aisle ways and access streets clear.
Schumann also mentioned that the required quantities for landscaping is met with
the proposal, but because the development would abut a residential areas, the
City's buffer yard requirements are applicable. Staff recommended an increase in
landscaping treatments to comply with the buffer yard requirement (with an
increase of approximately eight canopy trees).
The applicant indicated that they would like to have wall signage and City staff
recommended submittal of a signage package with final stage plans.
The buildings would be approximately 55,000 square feet and of metal design.
The northern buildings facing Dundas Road would consist of masonry or cultured
stone and the southern buildings would include a wainscot of metal.
Wall pack lighting is only proposed on the site and is consistent with the code
requirements.
Schumann stated that a preliminary plat is also proposed by the applicant with
eight separate lots. She explained that a discrepancy exists on the south boundary
line. Staff would require the applicant to submit revised plans that accurately
demonstrate the southern boundary.
6
Schumann stated that the City Engineer submitted a comment letter that details
stormwater management requirements and having a maintenance and cross access
agreement.
Schumann reviewed the Exhibit Z comments with the Planning Commission and
recommended approval.
Brad Fyle asked how far the discrepancy was off. Schumann stated that it was
believed to be several feet different, but deferred to the applicant to verify.
Sam Murdoff asked for clarification of the fifteen percent stone requirement.
Schumann stated that it was only for the two fronting buildings proposed on
Dundas Road, with the southern buildings having varying metal coloring.
Fyle opened the public hearing.
Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design, LLC, explained that the project
would be similar to the Concept Stage Planned Unit Development submittal.
Dahlke stated that they have requested information from the Wright County
Surveyor and Auditors Office in regards to the south boundary discrepancy. He
stated that the discrepancy existed because of the way the original properties were
platted and a section line of 3.2 feet north of what is identified as the south
boundary. Either way, the discrepancy would not affect the proposed project as
there is green space that could absorb that difference. Dahlke added that the items
displayed in Exhibit Z would be addressed with the final stage PUD plans.
Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing.
Marc Simpson asked the applicant if all buildings would be sprinkled for fire
suppression. Dahlke declined, but added that they would stub six inch water
services up to each building and the intent was for multiple tenants to pull from
the service line. There was a note on the site plans that Dahlke confirmed would
remove fire suppression language.
Schumann asked Dahlke if the six southern buildings would have a two part
wainscot. Dahlke confirmed that the two southerly and two northerly buildings
would have the stone enhancement.
John Rued explained that a sprinkler system may be required depending on the
type of business operating at the site.
Marc Simpson asked about the fire truck circulation plan and which trucks were
used in the submitted drawings. Dahlke stated that the plans were generated with
a specific software that only allows for specific truck dimensions. The truck in the
plan had a wider turning radius than Monticello's firetrucks. Dahlke commented
that he spoke with the Water Superintendent and it met what he was looking for.
7
Sam Murdoff asked what types of accommodations were made for the semi -
trucks. Dahlke indicated that they did remove parking stalls on both ends of the
property and increased the radius on the corners. The final plan set would have a
truck routing plan.
Fyle asked what happens if parking and unloading become a problem. Schumann
responded that the Street Superintendent would work with the property owner and
may involve the City Council if necessary. Schumann stated that staff did not
want the proposal to rely on the public street.
Charlotte Gabler asked if common area maintenance agreements would be in
place. Dahlke confnned that an association would be established to pay for costs.
Murdoff asked how many feet were proposed between the buildings. Dahlke
stated 60 feet between buildings and the truck court.
Decision 1— Rezoning to Planned Unit Development District, and Development
Stage PUD approval.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017 - 012,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO PUD DISTRICT
FOR SPAETH INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN
SAID RESOLUTION, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z
OF THE STAFF REPORT. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat approval for Spaeth Industrial Park.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017 - 013,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SPAETH INDUSTRIAL PARK, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z OF
THE STAFF REPORT. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Spaeth Industrial Parr — PUD Zoning and Preliminary Plat
PID 155018003020
Lot 2, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park
1. Research and revise the Plat and PUD plans as necessary based on the
issues raised by the south boundary line with Klein Fanns Estates 2nd
Addition.
2. As a part of the Final PUD application, provide a Sign Plan for the PUD
consistent with City code requirements.
3. Prepare a site circulation signage plan for entry, exiting, and pavement
markings as approved by the City Engineer.
4. Prepare cross -access and parking easements and maintenance covenants,
and enter into a development agreement with the City, meeting the
requirements of the City Attorney for maintenance and required
improvements.
5. Update the circulation plan to show full truck turning movements
consistent with the comments in the staff report.
6. Verify internal trash handling equipment, and prohibit outdoor storage as a
part of the project PUD approvals.
7. Coordinate addressing and mailbox installations with City Building and
Streets departments.
8. Increase south bufferyard planting as noted in the staff report.
9. Compliance with the terms and requirements of the City Engineer's report.
10. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
E. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and
Preliminary Plat for Chelsea Corner for Office, Service, and Warehouse Uses
in the Red Rooster Planned Unit Development.
Applicant: Red Rooster Properties, Inc.
Angela Schumann explained the applicant, Red Rooster Properties, Inc., wished
to subdivide an existing parcel into two parcels as exhibited in a proposal for
preliminary plat. The area was zoned PUD in 2016 primarily to accommodate an
office use for places of public assembly and accessory uses to office and indoor
storage uses.
The preliminary plat shows the westerly parcel with an existing building. The
proposed use of the building would be industrial service uses (office, storage,
warehouse, accessory storage). The easterly proposed parcel includes existing
accessory buildings, a concrete slab from a former accessory building, and a new
office. The area of the parcels would be 1.79 acres for the westerly lot and 1.88
acres for the easterly lot. Lot widths along Chelsea Road were measured at
approximately 160 feet for the easterly lot and 140 feet for the westerly lot. The
two parcels would use the same access along Chelsea Road.
Schumann explained that the existing and proposed landscaping is consist with
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Deciduous trees are shown to be planted along
Chelsea Road.
C
The parking for the industrial service use was shown as twenty spaces and
consistent with the code requirements. Sixteen new stalls would be constructed
for the new office building. There are two proposed tenants for the new building.
On the easterly lot, the applicant requests the ability to construct another building
similar in height to the existing building that is currently seen. Staff recommend
paving to the accessory use structure as a condition. Schumann also recommended
that a parking analysis be calculated to ensure adequate parking would serve the
accessory site.
Schumann indicated the building materials and design are consistent with what is
currently seen on the existing building.
Schumann added that the City Engineer would need to review the stormwater and
utilities at the time the building was constructed.
Staff recommended paving of the easterly portion of the site to rear of the
building to be consistent with the code.
An existing sign currently exists on the westerly building that could be refaced.
Schumann explained that the new owners of the westerly parcel would need to
abide by the code if changing the sign. A new sign is proposed for the easterly site
that appears to meet code requirements and setbacks.
Staff recommended trash handling appeared to occur internally to the buildings
and would be a condition on the approval.
Schumann also explained about the building materials. She stated the existing
building is a metal building with accent treatments of different materials. The
easterly proposed building would have similar building materials and designs to
the westerly site.
Schumann asked that the applicant meet code requirements for lighting and to
demonstrate compliance with the photometric requirements.
Schumann reviewed the Exhibit Z comments with staff recommending approval.
Brad Fyle asked if a better building quality could be constructed for the roadway
appearance. John Rued stated the building code specifies the type of construction
materials rather than the quality.
Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward first.
Tom Holthaus, Red Rooster Properties, explained the history and the driving
force behind the proposed changes to the parcel. He added that the reason for the
approval of the additional future building on the existing slab was due to the
possible need for a larger indoor storage space. Holthaus also explained that the
windows on the second floor would be for office spaces. Holthaus requested the
10
removal of the condition to pave the area behind the fenceline by the proposed
easterly building due to high costs and possible drainage issues.
Schumann explained to the Planning Commission that all commercial/industrial
areas require curbing and pavement. She stated that as the uses on the site
intensify that they would like the property owner to come into compliance for
paving.
Holthaus requested an alternative for a chip -seal treatment at the time the new
building would be constructed. Holthaus commented that the area would be low
traffic and the requirement shouldn't be necessary.
Charlotte Gabler asked if a landscaping plan was submitted. Schumann confirmed
and added that existing and proposed landscaping was shown in the plan. This
included buffer landscaping and a metal fence. Gabler asked if there was
landscaping on the west side. Holthaus commented that there were ten to fifteen
existing mature trees.
Gabler asked if the owner would own both parcels. Holthaus stated that a
purchase agreement would be set up for the west parcel. A shared access
agreement would be signed by both parties. Gabler asked if an association or
common area maintenance agreement would need to be set up. Holthaus stated
that the common area maintenance agreement would be a part of the shared
access agreement.
Fyle asked if any lot splits or subdivisions have occun•ed nearby. Schumann was
unaware of any.
Schumann stated that in Oakwood Industrial Park it is common to have metal and
tilt -up buildings. Fyle expressed concern for the appearance of metal buildings.
Holthaus indicated that there are metal buildings surrounding the site and that the
metal buildings on his property would stay in place regardless of the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing.
Marc Simpson expressed his approval of the project, with the ability to work with
the applicant to have chip sealing instead of asphalt. Schumann stated that the
current hard surface would not change the drainage much with the chip sealing.
Staff would work with the City Engineer to work on an alternative and ensure
proper drainage before bringing forward to the City Council.
Sam Murdoff questioned varying from the ordinances as it related to the parking
requirement.
Gabler asked if the applicant would consider dressing up the buildings more.
Holthaus stated that he would be open to the possibility. Fyle also expressed the
same interests.
11
Schumann asked for clarifications on the building specifications for the overhang
on the easterly proposed building. He indicated that it was metal and would cover
the sidewalk area.
Murdoff asked for clarification of the cross access agreement. Holthaus explained
that the drive aisles would be covered in a shared agreement and the remaining
area of each parcel would be covered by the property owners.
Simpson asked how much pavement would be needed to be poured once new
construction occurred. Holthaus indicated approximately 7,000 square feet for the
front with approximately 3,000 square feet of chip seal to the back. Simpson
asked if there was a time frame of when the accessory building would be
constructed. Holthaus explained that would occur once space in other accessory
buildings was used up.
It was asked if there was an entrance proposed along Edmundson Drive.
Schumann stated that was not proposed at this time and would have to come
forward as a PUD amendment subject to the comments of the City Engineer.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017- 011
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
CHELSEA CORNER AND AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RED ROOSTER, BASED
ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND INCORPORATING THE
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE USE OF CHIP SEAL OR DESIGNATED
ALTERNATIVE BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH BRAD FYLE VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
EXHIBIT Z
Preliminary Plat of Chelsea Corner and Development Stage PUD
Red Rooster Properties, Inc.
100 Chelsea Road
Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park
Any expansion of self -storage activities in the PUD District beyond the
limited accessory non-commercial self -storage identified in the PUD
Site Plan and Narrative, as approved in the PUD Zoning District, shall
be subject to an amendment to Planned Unit Development and may
require additional improvements, including, but not limited to, paving,
curbing, stornwater, and screening.
2. No outdoor storage of materials or equipment or materials shall be
permitted in the PUD.
12
3. The future building made a part of this PUD shall be consistent in
materials, height, design, and color with the currently proposed
building.
4. Chip seal or other surfacing alternative acceptable to the City Engineer
in lieu of pavement shall be extended to the rear corner of the new
office building at the time of construction.
5. Chip seal or other surfacing alternative acceptable to the City Engineer
in lieu of pavement shall be further extended to the rear corner of the
future storage building at the time of construction of said future
building.
6. The applicant shall submit a site and full civil plan set showing the full
set of existing, currently proposed, and future building and site
improvements as a part of the record Final Stage PUD, including
phasing of such buildings and improvements.
7. Lighting and lighting plans in the PUD shall be revised to be
consistent with the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
8. Signage shall meet the requirements of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
9. Paving and circulation on the site shall be subject to the review and
comment of the City Engineer.
10. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City
Engineer, per the letter dated May 31 St, 2017.
11. The applicant enter into a PUD and Development Agreement for the
site specifying for the allowable uses and conditions. The
Development Agreement shall be accompanied by recordable cross -
access and parking agreements for the two parcels.
12. Conditions recommended by other City staff or the Planning
Commission.
F. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3 for regulations for accessory use outdoor
storage in industrial districts
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann stated that the City is currently facing a concern with industrial
land supply.
Schumann explained that the comprehensive plan discusses the importance of
attracting and retaining living wage jobs, increasing tax base, and the compatibly
13
of land uses. To support these goals of the comprehensive plan, staff proposes to
amend the zoning ordinance for outdoor storage, preserving more land area in
industrial districts for building uses which provide for tax base and wage
production.
Currently, outdoor storage is only allowed in industrial districts of the I-1 (Light
Industrial) and I-2 (Heavy Industrial) Districts.
Schumann stated that outdoor storage is permitted when adjacent to other
industrial land. It is proposed to keep that same standard. Currently, when
adjacent to a use other than industrial, outdoor storage is permitted except when it
abuts residential. A Conditional Use Permit is required when adjacent to a use
other than industrial.
The current ordinance allows for the size of outdoor storage to be up to the square
footage of the principal building. The proposed ordinance would allow, up to fifty
percent as a permitted use in the I-1 when adjacent to industrial uses; and up to
the square footage of the building by CUP. In the I-2, it is proposed to be
permitted up to the square footage of the building as a permitted use when
adjacent to industrial.
In terms of screening, the current ordinance refers to section 4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, a fifteen foot fence would be required
and landscaping.
The setback presently is six feet from the property line. The proposed ordinance
would be equal to the building setback in the I-1 and ten feet from the interior side
and rear yard; equal to the building setback in front and corner side, with 50 feet
when abutting use other than industrial.
The current ordinance is also somewhat unclear regarding the location of outdoor
storage. The proposed amendment would allow outdoor storage in the rear and
side yards (interior side). Corner lots would allow outdoor storage on the interior
of the lot only.
Schumann also reviewed other requirements including fence and wall materials;
height of storage; surfacing; hazardous waste storage; noise control; lighting; and
compliance with grading, drainage, stonnwater management and erosion control.
The Industrial and Economic Development Committee and the Economic
Development Authority reviewed and recommended the amendments for outdoor
storage as proposed.
Charlotte Gabler indicated the importance of balancing industrial land with the
needs for outdoor storage.
Schumarui indicated that the rationale behind the change was to think about
industrial land space and its uses of whether it should be used for outdoor storage
14
or additional area for buildings, jobs, and wages. Schumann recognized the
importance for outdoor storage.
Angela Schumann discussed if a nonconformity existed following an amendment
to the ordinance for outdoor storage. She said that the user would be allowed to
continue the use of outdoor storage under the existing allowances, until they
expand their use, provided such storage was lawful non -conforming.
Sam Murdoff asked about the proposed requirement of having outdoor storage on
an impervious service. Schumann stated that the current ordinance allows outdoor
storage on a grassed or surfaced area that controls dust. Schumann stated that it is
difficult to control dust without a surfaced area and that many businesses are
already required by the MPCA to have impervious surface.
Brad Fyle commented about the landscaping standard of planting a tree that could
reach fifteen feet. Schumann stated the importance of the landscaping
requirement.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2017-014,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 6XX, FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5,
SECTION 3 FOR REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY USE OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
Being no public hearing was held, SAM MURDOFF RESCINDED THE VOTE.
MARC SIMPSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Schumann indicated the item would be coming back during the July Planning
Commission Meeting to hold the public hearing.
G. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance Chanter 4, Section 3 — Fences and Walls: Chapter 4,
Section 5 for regulations for multi -tenant building signage, Chapter 5,
Section 3 for regulations on Accessory Use Dwellings and Chapter 5, Section
4 for regulations for Temporary Uses — Food Trucks
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann stated that a series of amendments would provide clarity to the
existing ordinances, resolve conflicts with various code sections, and try to
provide regulations that respond to revolving land use patterns or changes or
correspond to recent code changes. Schumann summarized the following
amendments.
Chapter 4, Section 3 amendments would provide clarity and material type by
district, add an allowance for low profile garden fencing, and provide changes
relative to building code changes.
15
Chapter 4, Section 5 for signs amendments would allow multi -tenant buildings
having a single entrance to have signage. The current ordinance does not allow
signs for multi -tenant single entrance facilities.
Chapter 5, Section 3 for accessory uses would be removed in its entirety.
Schumann stated that accessory dwelling units needs more review to better
understand building codes and case law. Staff would review as accessory units
evolve.
Chapter 5 — Temporary Use table would refer to mobile food units and reference
the applicable code.
Charlotte Gabler asked if any accessory dwelling units have been approved by the
city. Schumann responded that none had been permitted under the existing
language. Gabler asked what would happen if someone would request an
accessory dwelling unit today. Schumann stated it would be permitted provided it
meets the standards in the code. Murdoff asked by removing the accessory
dwelling units from the code, if it would be prohibited. Schumann confirmed.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing
was closed.
John Rued expressed concerns and questions (such as setbacks, sewer/water
hookups) for accessory unit dwellings from a building code viewpoint.
John Alstad asked about the types of food trucks. Schumann explained the newly
approved code and the licensing requirements. Marc Simpson asked if any interest
has been received in Monticello. Schumann was unclear, but believed a few
inquiries have been received.
Murdoff asked for the definition of low -profile garden fencing. Schumann
responded that from time to time inquiries have been received and that the
amendment would provide clarity to interested residents.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2017-015
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 6XX, FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4,
SECTION 3 — FENCES AND WALLS; CHAPTER 4, SECTION 5 FOR
REGULATIONS FOR MULTI -TENANT BUILDING SIGNAGE, CHAPTER 5,
SECTION 3 FOR REGULATIONS ON ACCESSORY USE DWELLINGS,
AND CHAPTER 5, SECTION 4 FOR REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY
USES — FOOD TRUCKS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC -2017-
0. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commission representative to a Sub-
committee for the Adaptive Re -use or Sale of the Ellison Property
16
Brad Fyle stated that he would be open to sitting on the task force. Fyle asked if
the meetings have been set yet. Angela Schumann stated that they would form the
committee and see what works best for the majority.
Sam Murdoff stated he was interested in serving on the committee. Fyle stated he
could be a backup.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER MURDOFF TO THE
ELLISON PROPERTY SUB -COMMITTEE. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Consideration of preliminary comment and feedback on the draft Downtown
Small Area Plan.
Angela Schumann explained that the City has been working on a focused area
plan for the core downtown. Simpson has served on the Small Area Study
Committee.
Schumann provided the origin of the study by stating there have been new
investments in downtown, the retail landscaping has changed, and the need to
provide certainty to developers of city owned parcels.
Two plans have previously been completed in the past 20 years.
Work on the plan considered the input of many stakeholders including the
steering committee and the public. Community engagement activities were set up
at various times during the planning process along with open meetings and
workshops. Their input was rolled into the plan.
Schumann explained the study document should be flexible and scalable and that
investments will occur over time. She also explained the four main goals
identified in the plan.
Schumann stated that she would like the plan to come forward to the public
bodies through public hearing process in July. The logistics of an implementation
workshop would be worked out on next. She anticipated that Steering Committee
would continue to meet for areas such as banners, lighting, or public art in the
downtown.
Brad Fyle expressed concerns for seeing changes in 20 years and the amount to
spend to make the downtown attractive.
Charlotte Gabler stated there was many viewpoints for how the downtown should
look. She stated the goal of the steering committee was to spark interest and
vitalization in the downtown again.
Schumann explained how the plan would fit in with the Embracing Downtown.
She stated the Embracing Downtown still has good information and is valid in
some areas, but that the Small Area Study would fit in for the core blocks. She
stated that the plan would likely come forward to the Planning Commission as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment in July.
17
C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Directors Report and
invited the Planning Commission to the volunteer picnic on June 22"a.
The next Planning Commission Meeting would occur on Tuesday, July 11 t" due to
the upcoming holiday.
The previously heard Chadwick/Bowers land use application for rezoning would
be heard at the Monday, June 12th City Council meeting.
Information regarding recent legislature action was provided by the City Clerk.
The legislature expanded the requirements for public notice for ordinance
amendments.
Schumann also mentioned that the City would continue to monitor case law
regarding Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Schumann recommended the Planning Commissioners to attend the League of
Minnesota Cities Land Use Basics Training.
4. Added Items
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:01 P.M. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: July 11, 2017 �1
Attest:
Angela SchunWhn(Co�nmunity Development Director
go