Planning Commission Minutes 08-01-2017MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August lst, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present:
Council Liaison Present:
Staff Present:
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson
Charlotte Gabler
Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
Brad Fyle called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00
p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special/Joint Meeting Minutes — July 1111, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL/JOINT
MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 11TH, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes —July 11th, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 11TH, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Marc Simpson requested the addition of a topic at the end of the agenda.
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann stated at the last regular meeting, the Planning Commission
was asked to review the draft downtown Small Area Study. In addition, a joint
workshop with the EDA and Planning Commission was held to discuss the plan.
Schumann recommended tabling action on the study and continuing the public
hearing to the September, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting. The
consultant is working on a revised plan to address items presented at previous
meetings. The EDA would be presented the revised plan at their August 9th
meeting.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION OF THE
DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA STUDY AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2017
MEETING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and
Preliminary Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas for detached single family lots in
an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District at Autunnn Ridge 3rd Addition
Applicant: SW Wold Construction/Ocello, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally
approved in the early 2000s. He said that the project was platted to include
attached townhome units with the streets and utilities built out on the entire site.
The site to the east of the developed townhomes has sat vacant for several years.
The applicants proposed forty-one detached townhomes (instead of completing
the original seventy-nine approved attached townhomes) for the remainder of the
PUD area.
Grittman explained that a separate association would exist if development of the
detached townhomes occurred.
Grittman explained that a Concept Stage PUD review took place and the applicant
revised their Development Stage PUD plans to reflect some of the comments.
Grittman stated that discussion at the concept stage review included staying clear
of setback areas. The applicant indicated they revised the porches to meet the
setback requirements and to slide the units back to include at twenty-five foot
driveway for each unit.
Grittman reviewed the Exhibit Z comments presented in the staff report with the
recommendation of staff approval.
Brad Fyle asked if an association could block off a road to prevent people from
accessing either development area. Grittman responded that a cross easement
condition would require both associations to allow access to the other.
Sam Murdoff asked for clarification on comment seven of Exhibit Z. Grittman
stated that the building separation is about twenty-six feet at its closest point,
which is why additional conifer trees are requested to be planted in this area to
add privacy and separation.
Fyle asked for clarification on the amenities that would be included in the
association. Grittman stated that would be detennined by the association
documents, but noted that the building exterior would be the responsibility of the
homeowner.
K
Charlotte Gabler asked how many styles of each kind of townhome were
proposed. Grittman understood that there would be no walkouts. Gabler asked
about concerns for traffic along Edmondson Avenue and School Boulevard.
Grittman responded that the density would be less than what was originally
approved and mentioned the Engineer's Department ongoing evaluation of traffic
on roadways.
Murdoff asked for further clarity on the separation. Grittinan stated that most are
proposed at ten foot side yard separation and that recommendation was the
minimum separation suggested from the Building Official. Murdoff asked what
the separation was for Sunset Ponds, Grittman stated that many of the buildings
are spaced at twelve feet from each other.
Brad Fyle opened the Public Hearing and welcomed the applicant to speak first.
Scott Wold, SW Construction stated that he had no concerns with the conditions
from Exhibit Z.
Gabler asked about the style of homes. Wold explained that ten of the units (25%)
would have full basements and that the others would be constructed to have a
crawl space.
Angela Schumann added public comment that the City received from Kent
Kjellberg of Kjellberg Manufactured Home Park, who indicated no concerns with
the development.
On July 27th, the Parks Commission reviewed the plat for park dedication and did
not have concerns with the proposal in terms of park dedication requirements in
recognition of existing pathways and proposed pathway connection.
Brad Fyle closed the public hearing.
Marc Simpson asked for information about phasing. Wold explained their goal
would be to complete the project within 24 months depending on the economy.
Murdoff reiterated concerns with the spacing between the homes. Wold explained
the project was designed with all the utilities built around the rear of the homes
and no access would be required between the buildings.
Decision 1. Rezoning to PUD
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-019,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS
NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING OPPOSITION.
3
Decision 2. Preliminary Plat
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-020,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOTED IN THE
RESOLUTION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Decision 3. Development Stage PUD
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-019,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOTED IN THE
RESOLUTION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
EXHIBIT Z
Rezoning to PUD, Development Stage PUD, and
Preliminary Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas
Legal Description (lengthy): parts of Autumn Ridge 311 Addition
1. A pathway connection is provided from the internal portion of the project to Edmonson
Avenue NE as directed by City staff.
2. Abandoned utility lines will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association for
future maintenance as needed.
3. The homeowner's association will be responsible (at minimum) for street, driveway, and
landscaping maintenance and any other improvements in the cominon areas of the
project.
4. The applicant will provide verification of a mutual cross -access agreement between the
original Autumn Ridge project and the proposed replat area.
5. All driveways shall be at least 25 feet in depth from face of garage to street curb.
6. Side building separations shall be no less than 10 feet.
7. Landscaping plans shall be revised to add typical shrub and ornamental plantings for each
unit, as well as additional conifer tree planting in those rear yard areas where buildings
are separated by less than 40 feet.
8. The requirements of the City Engineer's report, dated July 26th, 2017, are met.
9. The applicant enter into a development agreement as a condition of Final Plat and Final
PUD approval.
L,
10. Resolution of any comments of the City Attorney as related to the homeowner's
association for the Autumn Ridge development.
11. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to official
Monticello Zoning May for rezoning from A -O (Agriculture — Open Space)
District to R-1 (Single Family Residence) District and Preliminary Plat for
Featherstone 3rd Addition for detached single family lots
Applicant: Graser, Horst
Steve Grittman stated that this project was started in the early 2000s under the
prior R-1 zoning code. It included over two hundred acres of development land
with a variety of land uses. The applicant proposes to extend Ebersole Avenue to
85a' Street NE and to plat twenty-four new single family lots. The remainder of
Outlot A would be undeveloped and placed under a new Outlot. Grittman
explained that the reason a preliminary plat was necessary was due to the time
lapse, with the prior preliminary plat expiring.
Brad Fyle asked if there were reasons why open land is zoned A -O (Agricultural
Open Space). Grittman stated when land is annexed, the A -O zoning district is
applied until a final plat for development is approved, at which time rezoning
occurs. As future phases are developed at Featherstone, rezoning will also need to
occur.
Grittman stated under the original plan, a park system was designed to incorporate
stormwater management and open space requirements. No additional park
dedication is proposed with this phase of the plat. The park dedication concept
requirement would be written in the Development Agreement for future phases.
It was noted that all of the proposed lots met the R-1 zoning requirements.
Grittman presented the recommended conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the
staff report.
Fyle asked about street stubbing. He also asked how much space would exist
between the development and Fallon Avenue. Grittman estimated a quarter to a
half mile.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to answer Planning
Commissioner questions.
Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development, provided history of the planned unit
development. Graser then discussed the proposed twenty-four lot development
and agreed to the stipulations outlined in the Staff Report. He stated that the
homes would be built out within two years by Novak -Fleck Homes and
Progressive Homes, with an average cost of the homes ranging from $250,000 to
5
$300,000. Most of the homes would be two story with basement, split entry,
multifamily/multilevel, or rambler construction. Graser stated that they are not
asking for anything new from the original approval.
Fyle asked that the Exhibit Z items were acceptable. Graser confirmed.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Angela Schumann stated that the President of Kjellberg's Manufactured Home
Park submitted written comment that there was no objection to the proposed
development.
The Parks Commission also reviewed the preliminary plat and noted no new park
dedication would be required for this phase. The Parks Commission mentioned
the Capital Improvement Plan includes development for a play area in the
Featherstone neighborhood. They would like to move forward with the park that
was proposed in the original approval and recognized comment number five in
Exhibit Z.
Decision 1. Preliminary Plat
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-021,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
FEATHERSTONE 3RD ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN
EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0.
Decision 2. Rezoning.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-022
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM A -O,
AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
FOR THE 24 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS TO BE PLATTED AS FEATHERSTONE 3RD
ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3rd Addition
PID 155-180-000010
Outlot A, Featherstone 2nd Addition
Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, are re -notated to indicate actual lot width per Zoning Ordinance
definition.
2. Street extensions for 87t" Street NE and 86t" Street NE are constructed to their full extent
in the plat.
on
3. Easement notations are corrected to be consistent with City standards.
4. Street and lot designs for future extension, shown in dashed lines, are not included in the
Yd Addition plat.
5. Park Dedication requirements for the full Featherstone project are reiterated, and if
necessary, re -calculated and included in the updated Development Agreements and
recorded against the current and future phases.
6. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer's report, dated July 26, 2017.
7. Compliance with other staff comments as submitted.
D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to official
Monticello Zoning Map for rezonim from B-4 (Regional Business) to B-3
(Highway Business) District and text amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Section 5.2 Use -Specific Standards
Applicant: Ryan Buffalo Land Company, LLC.
Steve Grittman stated that two zoning amendments were proposed including a
rezoning and text amendment to Section 5.2 Use -Specific Standards.
Steve Grittman explained that the Zoning Ordinance contains a table for building
to lot ratio for vehicle sales and rental. Grittman explained that this section of the
code was created during a time when pressure for car dealerships along I-94 and
Chelsea Road existed. City staff were concerned with the previous language of
the code that would allow developers to purchase large areas of commercial land
for car dealership vehicle storage areas, which would result in little tax collection
and employment.
The applicants have suggested that the industry has changed significantly and
larger buildings were no longer constructed for these types of dealerships. The
applicants have submitted details from their architect with examples of the size of
recently completed dealership buildings.
Staff developed an alternative table for the Planning Commission to consider that
would address the applicant's proposal. The applicant stated that they would meet
these requirements for their proposed development. Grittman expressed that the
City should review the proposed amendment to ensure that the zoning amendment
would continue to meet economic development policies.
Grittman explained the bulk of the property along Chelsea Road to the southeast
is zoned B-3 and that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the area.
Brad Fyle stated that a few months ago a parcel was rezoned in that area.
Grittman responded that the parcel to the west was recently rezoned to industrial.
The rezoning originally included both the applicant's parcel and the parcel to the
7
west, however this property owner withdrew the original request to rezone to
industrial. The subject parcel is approximately nineteen acres total, with the east
ten acres being proposed to be used for a vehicle dealership. The ten acres would
require a phased Conditional Use Permit for development of vehicle sales and
service use.
Fyle asked for reassurance on an appropriate building to lot ratio. Grittman
provided reference to the current Camping World and Quarry Church buildings.
Sam Murdoff asked what other uses are available in the B-3 zone. Grittman
responded many of the auto related uses, lodging, and restaurant are allowed in a
B-3 zone. Murdoff asked if these other uses have a different building to lot ratio.
Grittman responded that vehicle uses are the only type of use that the ratio applies
to.
Fyle asked for clarification on the site relative to the proposal versus total land
area. Grittman responded that the parcel is a total of nineteen acres, with the
applicant purchasing the easterly ten acres. They would initially develop five
acres with a building of 20,000 to 25,000 square feet. Then they would develop
the second, five acres with another dealership. They would meet the threshold
with both of these projects.
Brad Fyle opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, stated he was speaking on behalf of
the applicant — Bob Ryan. Elam stated that the applicant has two dealerships in
Buffalo and would like to expand to Monticello. Elam stated the recent trend for
smaller car dealerships of around 20,000 to 23,000 square feet buildings. Elam
also stated the ten acres has entered into a purchase agreement and that the intent
was to plat the property into two five acre parcels with a minimum of a 20,000
square foot building on each parcel.
Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the Public Hearing.
Marc Simpson asked how large the Cornerstone Chevrolet building is. Grittman
responded that it is a little over 50,000 square feet.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the parcel was B-3 before. Grittinan responded that it
was originally industrial zoning and then converted to B-4.
Sam Murdoff asked what other properties were zoned B-3 on Chelsea Road.
Grittman responded that all of the properties to the north of the parcel to Highway
25 are zoned B-3.
Decision 1. Rezoning from B-4 to B-3
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-024
RECOMMENDING ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 6XX, REZONING THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO B-3,
HIGHWAY BUSINESS. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Decision 2. Zoning Text Amendment to Table 5-3
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-025
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX, AMENDING THE BUILDING SIZE RATIO FOR
VEHICLE SALES/RENTAL USES. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
E. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Micro-Brewery/Taproom in CCD (Central Community District)
Applicant: Burt, Bill and Penny
Steve Grittman explained that the applicant planned on occupying the west
portion of the building to establish a micro -brewery and taproom. Grittman
explained that the Zoning Ordinance was amended to accommodate micro -
breweries and taprooms in a variety of zoning districts, including the Central
Community District (CCD).
Grittman explained that parking was the primary concern for the proposed site,
however the code does not have specific parking requirements for uses such as
bars and taprooms. A maximum capacity of fifteen parking spots could be
accommodated on the site. Grittman further explained that the code explains that
the CCD acknowledges a significant amount of parking in the downtown area
could be accommodated by public parking lots or on street parking. A parking
agreement could be assigned which would reduce the parking requirement to sixty
percent of the code. There would also be the option to pay into a public parking
lot fund if the applicant could not provide sufficient onsite parking.
Grittman explained that one way of determining parking is to count the number of
seats in the establishment. The applicant proposes having forty-seven seats with
bar seating as a seating capacity. A common application of the requirement is one
parking space per three seats. With this application, the site would only be a few
parking stalls short.
Staff believed with the public parking lot and their hours (typically alternate to the
surrounding businesses), along with the noted cross easement, parking for the
proposed use could be accommodated.
Grittman reviewed the comments found in the staff report under Exhibit Z and
recommended approval.
Brad Fyle asked what other neighboring businesses were doing for parking.
Grittman stated that the public parking is not rented or leased to a specific
business in the downtown. Fyle stated that many of the businesses didn't have any
privately owned parking and that the public parking lots were never filled.
Sam Murdoff asked if any of the other businesses on the block have paid into the
public parking fund. Grittman declined. Murdoff questioned how they could have
one business pay into the parking fund, while the others have not. Grittman
reiterated that the reduced parking supply is built into the code, with an
acknowledgement of dropping the parking to nothing, if there was enough public
parking.
Fyle explained that he was not seeing conflict as some parking was available on
site.
Charlotte Gabler asked if shared agreements could be in place with neighboring
businesses if parking would spill onto their sites. Gabler asked about parking for
special events such as Taste of Monticello. Angela Schumann responded that the
City has as special events permit that would applicable. Schumann also mentioned
that many discussions revolving around parking have been explained in the Small
Area Study. One of the main suggestions from the consultants of the plan would
be to create a new parking policy. Gabler asked if an Exhibit Z comment was in
place for the public parking lot. Grittman stated that the parking lot was to be used
by the public for any reason and was not included in Exhibit Z.
Marc Simpson asked whose parking (private or public) was in front of the
chiropractor's office. Grittman responded that it was a part of the chiropractor's
office.
Brad Fyle opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to answer questions
first.
Bill and Penny Burt, Rustech Brewing introduced themselves.
Fyle asked if there would be any concerns with noise or smell. Bill Burt stated
that the brewing equipment would be quiet and everything would be vented
through the top of the system. Burt stated that the smell would be similar to a
bread house.
John Alstad asked for a comparison of their proposal to other neighboring
breweries. Burt explained that their system would be a five barrel system, where
Lupulin's in Big Lake is larger.
Simpson asked if they could expand their operations. Burt explained they could
expand height wise to a ten to fifteen barrel system. He added that the first year
would be growler and keg sales with canning in the second year.
Murdoff asked for the type of traffic that would come for deliveries. Burt
explained that deliveries would arrive by pickup truck.
Gabler asked if the applicant was interested in outdoor seating. Burt stated that the
public has been asking for outdoor seating, but with the current parking issues, it
10
was not being considered. Burt explained interest in the possibility of having
rooftop seating.
Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, stated that he wanted to be sure that
the applicants did not have to come back for approval for wholesale distribution
as identified in Exhibit Z. Fyle asked for clarification on wholesale distribution.
Burt stated that wholesale distribution would be for canning purposes and
shipping sales.
Grittman asked the applicant what type of vehicle they would use for distributing.
Burt replied a van would be used and he would self -distribute. Grittman
mentioned no concerns this proposal.
Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing.
Fyle commented that he would like to see a reduction in the amount of required
parking for possible, future outdoor seating.
Gabler asked if outdoor seating would need to be an Exhibit Z condition.
Grittman stated he believed they would have to amend their Conditional Use
Permit at a future date.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-023,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
BREWERY/TAPROOM, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT
Z WITH THE REVISIONS TO ALLOW WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AND
PARKING. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditional Use Permit for Rustech Brewery/Taproom
213 Pine Street
Lots 4 and 5, Block 35, Original Plat of Monticello
1. The applicant completes all licensing applications necessary as specified in the City Code
and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant sells only the products of the brewery produced on-site.
3. Deliveries are only by passenger vehicle or light truck, and do not utilize the public right-
of-way.
4. The addition of brewery capacity beyond the current size would require an amendment to
the CUP.
5. The addition of packaging facilities for wholesale distribution is included in the CUP,
subject to passenger or cargo van distribution and canning equipment and process as
11
described at the Planning Commission Meeting on August 1, 2017. (revised from the
Staff Report)
6. The applicant complies with the requirements of Section 5.2.F(24) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as referenced in the staff report.
7. The parking area along the west side of the building is re -striped to provide 4 parallel
spaces adjacent to the public parking lot, retaining a drive aisle between this parking and
the west building wall.
8. The City Council approves the parking calculation supporting a net requirement for 15
parking spaces for the subject property.
9. The property owner agrees to accommodate public access to the parking spaces along the
south and west side of the property in order to comply with the 60% parking supply
standard for CCD land uses. No further parking accommodations would be necessary to
support this use in its proposed configuration.
10. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer's report dated July 26, 2017.
11. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
F. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 4, Section 8 for regulations on driveway width for
residentially zoned parcels
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann explained that the item was brought to the Planning
Commission as recommended by the City Council to allow additional width of
driveways for residential properties specifically single family parcels. Concerns
were brought forward to the City Council by residents in the Groveland
neighborhood.
Schumann explained at present, the Zoning Ordinance requires the maximum
driveway width at the curb and property line be twenty-four feet in width. The
width is applicable for all zones including: residential, commercial, and industrial.
Schumann stated that the twenty-four foot width originated to accommodate two
stall garage designs. Larger driveway widths are being asked by residents, more
than likely to accommodate three stall garages. Schumann stated that many of the
three stall garages maintain the twenty-four foot width at the curb and property
line and widen up to the garage.
Schumann provided examples of the purposes for the boulevard which includes
snow storage, public utilities, green space, and planting of the two required
boulevard trees.
12
Schumann stated the current twenty-four foot width is flexible to accommodate a
number of single family lot configurations.
Staff's recommendation was to maintain the property width of twenty-four feet at
the property line and curb.
Sam Murdoff asked for the typical distance from the property line to the curb.
Schumann explained that it varied, but generally was ten to fifteen feet.
Brad Fyle explained that he was open to the idea of a larger driveway width
because it takes vehicles off of the streets and better accommodates the three stall
garages.
Schumann explained the challenges with allowing a thirty foot driveway
(especially on cul-de-sac lots) with maintaining drainage swales and having
enough planting room for two trees.
Gabler asked if by changing the driveway widths, the side setbacks would need to
also be changed. Schumann did not believe so. Schumann reiterated concerns
with drainage and utility easements.
Schumann also discussed the ability to have impervious surface beside garages up
to three feet to the property lines. Schumann also added by having additional
driveway widths, on -street parking would be reduced.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing
was closed.
Schumann noted that parking could not occur from fifteen feet from the curb.
John Rued explained that he was looking for consistency and concerns with
enforcement of the fifteen foot setback.
Sam Murdoff asked if any of the decisions would make enforcement easier or
harder. Schumann responded that in the staff report it says that the City is
working on being more proactive rather than having to enforce.
Fyle asked if Alternative Two of the staff report could have a maximum width at
the house. Schumann responded that discussion about a maximum width was
held, but the issue was with extra space. Schumann also added that discussion
about having a maximum impervious requirement for residential.
Gabler asked if a workshop meeting should be held to visualize the possible
changes. Schumann stated that the board could table action.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENT TO THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WIDTH
BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND CURB FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
13
PROPERTIES IN THE R-1, R-2 AND R -A ZONING DISTRICTS, AT A
MAXIMUM OF 30' AT THE PROPERTY LINE, MAINTAINING THE 24'
MAXIMUM WIDTH AT THE CURB LINE. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
G. Tabled - Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development District,
and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Self -Storage Facility
in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: KB Properties, LLC
Angela Schumann stated that the Planning Commission tabled action and closed
the public hearing at the past meeting. The Planning Commission asked the
applicant to come back with additional infonnation and/or revisions on the
elevations and building materials. There was also discussions about the proposed
fence and the timing of the fenceline.
Keith Burnham, the applicant, stated that gable ends of the buildings were
proposed along Chelsea Road to have stucco/EFIS building materials. The gable
ends along Chelsea Road were also changed to have a Dutch hip. Burnham stated
he had spoken to the neighbors for their input. He also stated the building
proposed along Innsbrook Drive was changed to EFIS with building variations. A
bump in was proposed along this building to place a sign in that space. A sign on
Building #1 also was proposed for having a sign with wall lighting or landscaping
lighting proposed. Cupolas were also proposed to break up the buildings and
included a Dutch hip on the kiosk entry to Building #1.
Burnham proposed enhancing the fence with columns on the corners and every
hundred feet on Chelsea Road. He asked to be able to complete the fence by
September 15, 2018. He stated due to the weather the landscaping and fencing
would not be feasible this year.
Burnham added that he did not see the reason for eliminating the existing
driveway that has been there for years. He stated it could be used for construction
access and emergency access. Burnham also discussed having a fire department
accessible area in the fence a near the fire hydrant.
Marc Simpson asked for more information on fire safety. Burnham stated that the
Fire Department would have the ability to disconnect the gates. He also added that
each hydrant along Chelsea Road would have a slit in the fence except for the
northwest corner. He stated that the Fire Department would have the right to
entry, but it was the understanding that they would cut the fence if necessary. Fyle
stated that a lock box might be easier.
Simpson asked how customers would enter with the kiosk. Burnham stated that it
would likely be with a code.
Simpson asked the applicant to check with the fence company to see what would
be most feasible for access for the fire department.
14
Burnham added that to maintain the twenty-four foot drive lanes as indicated in
the Exhibit Z comments that he would propose moving the fenceline along the
northwest side of the site and the removal a few of the shrub plantings.
Schumann reviewed the revised Exhibit Z comments per discussion at the
meeting.
Decision 1: Consideration of a Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to Planned
Unit Development (PUD) District, and Development Stage PUD approval, to
accommodate the construction of a self -storage project and associated site
improvements.
MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-018 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS, TO PUD
DISTRICT, TOGETHER WITH A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL,
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH
ADDITIONS PER THE AUGUST IST PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
And PUD Development Stage Site Plan Review
Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland
1. Redesign of the site plan to accommodate 24 feet of width for all drive aisles.
2. Provision for pavement markings and bollards in the center aisle area to ensure protection
of building corners due to the curved aisle design.
3. Alter rock mulch in planting areas along the Chelsea Road pathway to an irregular
material of larger size to avoid spread of the material onto the pathway.
4. Verify transition grading between future and current phase improvements.
5. No outdoor storage will be permitted in the project.
6. No use of the future phase areas until such phase is developed in accordance with the
approved site plan.
7. Provide signage plans in compliance with the Sign Ordinance requirements by separate
pen -nit.
8. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated July
5th, 2017.
9. Developer shall enter into a development agreement related to the proposed
improvements.
15
10. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing.
a. A schedule which would accommodate grading for all phases
b. The utilities, including concrete curb and gutter, shall be completed for Phases 1
and 2 with the first phase of development.
c. The fence as proposed at the August 1", 2017 Planning Commission meeting,
including monument columns every 100 feet along Chelsea, shall be installed by
September 15th, 2018, with the first portion of the fence to be constructed to
correspond with Phase 1 as shown in the plans.
d. Building elevations and materials for buildings facing Chelsea Road and
Innsbrook Drive shall be as shown in the Planning Commission packet of August
0, 2017.
e. A signage plan which would accommodate either a monument in conformance
with City Code requirements or wall signage in conformance with City Code
requirements with the notation that the City does not allow pack lighting.
f. The landscaping plan shall be revised to illustrate the proposed fence and include
a timeline of landscaping for Phase 1 in spring 2018 and September 15th, 2018 for
the balance of the development.
g. Site and fencing plan shall be subject to the City Engineer's comments and those
of the Fire Department as related to the northerly access.
3. Regular Agenda
1. Consideration of a report on purchase agreement for 220 West Broadway
Street for consistency with Monticello Comprehensive Plan
Angela Schumann stated that the Planning Commission was asked to make a
finding that the purchase of 220 West Broadway was consistent with the
comprehensive plan and the draft downtown Small Area Study.
The EDA proposed the purchase of this property to provide access to internal
parking lots, access to additional greenspace, and additional parking lots.
Marc Simpson asked if a business was located at the site. Schumann responded
that it is a vacant parcel.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO FIND THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION
OF CERTAIN LAND BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR DOWNTOWN IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
A. Consideration of Recommendation for Appointment of Planning
Commissioner
Brad Fyle stated that a Special Meeting was held prior to the Regular Meeting and
that three applicants applied and interviewed for the position.
16
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF KATIE
PETERSON TO FILL OUT THE REMAINDER OF A THREE-YEAR TERM
ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
B. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report.
4. Added Items
Marc Simpson asked for information about Integrated Recycling Technologies (IRT).
Schumann responded that the property on the east side was acquired by another company.
The Conditional Use Permit that was in effect for that property ran with the land and that
the property owner and the former property owner were working on the specified
improvements. Simpson asked if IRT would maintain the business at the other parcel.
Schumann responded with uncertainty.
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:06 P.M. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
CT—
Approved: September 5, 2017
Attest:
Angela Sghum�r#n, Cor%munity Development Director
17