Planning Commission Minutes 09-05-2017MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COAT MISSION
Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Katie Peterson
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John
Rued, Jeff O'Neill
1. General Busllness
A. Call to Order
Brad Fyle called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00
p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes — August 11t, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 1 ST, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 1St, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 1 ST, 2017
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
BRAD FYLE ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF OFFICE TO KATIE PETERSON.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Charlotte Gabler asked to add the Broadway Market sign to the agenda.
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit
Development, and Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village 6th Addition for
single family lots in an R-2 (Single Family and Two Family Residential)
District
Applicant: Paxniar, LLC
Steve Grittinan explained that the original PUD for Carlisle Village was designed
to include attached townhome units, small lot single family, and large lot single
family. Grittman explained the area around the pond was expected to be final
platted for townhome development, but was not completed.
In the amendment to PUD, the applicant proposes to re -plat the seventeen
townhome lots and a portion of the common area outlot to accommodate a
fourteen detached townhome project. These would be controlled by an
association, platted on individual parcels, and with common area maintenance
controlled by an association.
Grittman explained that a Concept Stage PUD meeting was held in May. One of
the primary comments that came out of that discussion was transitioning from the
eight attached townhome units, without isolating or making those units seem out
of place. Comments related to design were also discussed at that meeting.
Grittman stated that the density of the project would be less with the proposal
compared to an attached townhome development. Most of the homes would be a
two story unit with a two stall garage facing the street. A few of the units have
three stall garages facing the street.
Grittman explained in further detail the highlighted points from the PUD Concept
Stage review and the response from the applicant. He noted that the importance of
understanding and coordinating how the association would be set up prior to
moving forward with the project. Also, Grittman suggested clarifying the
responsibilities for maintenance that the association would cover as typically
detached units are not covered for exterior building maintenance.
The change in unit styles was also mentioned during the Concept Stage submittal
and setbacks. He explained that the T -N neighborhood adjoins with the proposed
development area and suggested following the T -N district setbacks of six feet for
side yard, twenty to twenty-five feet for the front yard from the lot line and thirty-
five to forty feet from the curb. The applicant proposes five foot side setbacks
with twenty foot setbacks for the front yard from the property line and thirty-five
feet from the curb line.
Grittman suggested architectural treatments be applied to the detached units to
better mix the existing units.
A reduction in the density would occur from seventeen attached units to fourteen
detached units to seven and a half units per net acre.
Grittinan stated that the applicant was not making any proposals for the remainder
of the original project site at this time.
A reduction in the density would occur from seventeen attached units to fourteen
detached units and approximately seven and a half units per net acre (from nine
units per net acre).
Grittman explained that one difference between the detached unit and the single
family units on Gatewater Drive was that the face of the buildings would be
predominately garage, which is more typical of townhome units.
Grittman stated that the plat identifies individual lots, with each unit being
surrounded by private property open space.
2
Staff recommended approval of the proposal with the Exhibit Z comments.
Brad Fyle asked if they would be joining the existing association. Grittman
thought that there was the option to join the existing association at the existing
association's discretion. Fyle asked if there was a preference. Grittman declined
and added that it was important to understand that it's taken care of prior to the
final stage consideration. Fyle asked if the street in front of these units was a
public street. Grittman confirmed.
Sam Murdoff asked about setbacks. Grittman explained that with townhouse
projects, the standard is twenty-five feet behind the curb. Murdoff asked if it was
typical to have individual lots for townhome projects rather than having common
area for the entire project. Grittman stated that it varied. Occasionally buildings
are placed in a condominium fashion, but it's also possible that all the land would
be subdivided with no common areas. Murdoff asked about maintenance and
upkeep of the units. Grittman stated that the association documents could be
structured in several ways, but that it was common with detached townhome units
that the property owner would be responsible for the land on their parcel and
exterior building maintenance. Murdoff asked what common area would include.
Grittman stated all the grounds and the driveway, with the exception of an area
near the foundation of each unit.
Grittman added that typically the association documents would include
architectural control and be able to enforce property standards.
Charlotte Gabler asked with the wetland located in this area if any of the lots
would be affected by a conservation easement. Grittman did not believe there was
a conservation easement on this area and that only four of the parcels adjoined the
pond area. Gabler asked if decks or patios were proposed for those four units.
Grittman stated that there was a porch option noted, but they were within the
private property.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the developer to come forward
first.
Alan Roessler, Paxmar addressed two of the items on Exhibit Z. He noted that
staff asked for specific detail on handling Outlot B and D. He asked that the
approval be based on that they get the HOA documents to staff and the Planning
Commission before final approval to iron out all HOA responsibilities. Roessler
stated that their preference was for thein to join the existing association, but that
the time period to do so has lapsed. They would need to have the existing
association's cooperation and approval first. Roessler explained that the problem
with splitting the outlots was that they don't own that area and that the existing
HOA does.
Roessler also commented on the setbacks. He stated the reason for the identified
setback areas was to include a greater deck area on the back. He asked for the
twenty foot setback specifically on Block 3 because of the existing storm sewer
pipe that requires ten feet spacing. Roessler explained that the existing
townhomes have a twenty two foot front yard setback and requested having the
same setback. Roessler indicated that he agreed to the remainder of the Exhibit Z
comments.
Murdoff asked for clarification on the first comment on Exhibit Z. Roessler
requested that they would flush out the HOA responsibilities to staff's liking
before coming back for final approval. Schumann explained that staff would
likely be agreeable to a more general condition, but that the City would need to
understand the responsibilities and obligations of the new proposal to the existing
or to a new association. Schumann stated the condition must satisfy the concerns
of staff especially the City Attorney prior to final stage approval.
Schumann explained that the Planning Commission should provide direction on
the types of things to cover in their association documents, including maintenance
of common area and lots.
Roessler clarified that the association would handle snow removal on the
driveway and walkways, landscaping for all common and private areas to the
house, maintenance of all outdoor space, architectural control, and could also step
in if the maintenance became a blight.
Murdoff asked if decks would be constructed right away. Roessler indicated that
it would be an option, but would consider the request if desired by the Planning
Commission. Murdoff also asked for a reason for the setbacks. Roessler indicated
that they would like the option to build a deck, without the lesser setback.
Roessler explained the option to include a deck, specifically on Block 3, would be
obsolete with lesser setbacks. Roessler indicated that the decks were based on a
ten by twelve dimension.
Jacob Erickson, 6442 84th Street Northeast, asked about the proposed units with
decks facing Gatewater Drive. Grittman responded that the decks would not be
encroaching on the side yard. Fyle asked if the deck would not abut the sidewalk.
Grittman confirmed. Gabler asked if it would be similar spacing as the decks seen
in Autumn Ridge. Grittman confirmed. Erickson mentioned concerns with the
appearance and aesthetics of the separated townhome design. Erickson noted
concerns with property values and security. Fyle commented that the proposal
would be less density than approved, and that the association document would
ensure proper maintenance would be kept upheld. Erickson also asked if the
architectural stone and other treatments per code would be met. Grittman stated
that a specific percentage standard would not need to be met, but that the
applicant provided drawings that the Planning Commission could comment on
regarding architecture. Grittman stated that typically when calculating the amount
of brick and stone required on a residential building, it excludes the garage area. It
appears like a significant amount of materials were proposed for the models.
Erickson expressed concern with the units with side entrances and the space
between the buildings. Grittman stated that all units would need to meet the
0
building and fire code requirements. John Rued stated that the building code
requires a minimum of five foot separation from the property line.
Lloyd Hilgart, 6413 82nd Street, expressed concerns with traffic and parking on
Gatewater Drive. Hilgart expressed concerns especially when the remainder of the
site is built out. He also had traffic concerns with the two proposed homes that
face Bakken Street; he asked if there was a reason the one did not face Gatewater
Circle. Hilgart also requested that the developer build decks on all the units. He
expressed a desire to regulate the amount of each unit style.
Kara Moore, 8635 Gatewater Drive, commented that she was concerned about the
proposed development of Block 1, Lot 1 as it was originally platted to remain
vacant. She asked if there would be a requirement for thirty percent landscaping
for the proposed units. Grittman responded that this was a PUD and standards
could be negotiated. Staff have asked for additional landscaping information for
the units for final approval.
Jon Morphew, 8586 Gatewater Drive, commented about the decks and explained
that he thought they should be required to construct the decks or they shouldn't be
allowed the setback. It was noted that most of the homes in that neighborhood
included decks. Rued explained that often time developers do not build the decks
right away so that the homeowner can customize the deck to their liking.
Jacob Erickson, asked that the Planning Commission not approve the units with
the doors on the side. He believed they would detract from the development and
neighborhood.
Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Murdoff asked if there was a requirement in place for the existing townhomes to
have decks. Schumann stated that the design features was a decision of the
Planning Commission.
Katie Peterson was concerned with the new units fitting in with the townhomes.
Fyle indicated that instead of having one large roofline, the homes would be split
up with greater architectural detail.
Gabler asked if the side entrance design could be changed to have a stoop with
beams to match the other design. Roessler indicated that would encroach on the
setback. Roessler also added that the following would be built if approved: two of
the side entrance home, four of the three car garage home, and the remainder with
the 2 stall garage and the alleyway to the front door. Roessler indicated it was the
intent in the future to build the same type of unit in the remainder of the outlot. If
it was not approved, the attached townhome unit would be completed on the site
and the remainder of the outlot.
5
Jeff O'Neill explained the importance of keeping with the original design goals of
that development along Gatewater Drive and recommended incorporating some of
the design features of those homes into the detached townhome unit.
Katie Peterson asked if the units could provide more living space rather than
garage space fronting the curb. Roessler indicated that what they'd like to do is
take the existing townhome units that are already approved and built right away
and detach them and add additional value and architectural features. They are not
proposing to create a unit that is seen on Gatewater Drive.
Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
PUD and Development Stage PUD approval:
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-026,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO CUP FOR PUD
DEVELOPMENT STAGE FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, CONVERTING 17
ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE LOTS TO 14 DETACHED TOWNHOUSE LOTS,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH
REVISIONS THAT CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE
TO BE IN AGREEMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DURING
FINAL PLAT AND A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A 22 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 3-2 WITH SAM MURDOFF AND KATIE PETERSON
VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Decision 2: Consideration of Preliminary Plat approval:
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-027,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
CARLISLE VILLAGE 6TH ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH REVISIONS THAT CITY STAFF AND
THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT FOR
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DURING FINAL PLAT AND A 5 FOOT
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A 22 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. MARC
SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-2 WITH SAM
MURDOFF AND KATIE PETERSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
EXHIBIT Z
Carlisle Village 6" Addition
PUD Amendment/Development Stage PUD
And Preliminary Plat
Carlisle Village 211 Addition, Outlot C, and
Lots 1-5, Block 1; Lots 1-3, Block 2; Lots 1-4, Block 3; and Lots 1-5, Block 5.
The applicants must show — either by design and conveyance of land to a new association
which they control, or by fon-nal agreement between the current association and the new
plat — that the applicant's new units will have access rights across the common area of the
outlots to the public street. The final alternative must be completed as a part of the
application for Final Plat and Final PUD and be approved by the City Attorney.
2
2. The detached units should be designed to meet 5 foot side yard setbacks and 22 foot front
yard setbacks to accommodate standard internal lot line easements and parking use of the
front driveway areas.
The units adjacent to the existing attached buildings should be designed for submittal of
Final Stage PUD documents to incorporate similar materials and colors, including siding,
brick, and post design as noted. The unit designs, and designs that are similar in size and
fagade detail to those proposed shall be the exclusive architecture used in the project,
unless an appropriate amendment or adjustment is proposed and approved per the
requirements of the PUD zoning regulations.
4. Prepare final Homeowners Association documents meeting the intent of the City and
satisfying any concerns of the City Attorney relating to common maintenance and
enforcement. As noted in item 1, above, the documents should reflect the clear right of
the units proposed by the applicant to cross the common area to the public street.
5. Enforcement of Homeowners Association maintenance requirements shall not be
enforced by the City of Monticello, but documents may not be amended without City
approval via PUD Amendment until the Association has been turned over to individual
homeowners from the control of the developer.
6. Add landscape plantings, including shrubs and perennials, to the private lot
improvements for each detached unit, as illustrated in the accompanying building
illustrations.
7. The plat lies along Jason Avenue, CSAH 18, and requires the review of Wright County
for comment.
8. Comply with the requirements of the City Engineer's letter of August 25, 2017.
9. Comments of other City staff or those of the Planning Commission.
B. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study
Applicant: City of Monticello
Jeff O'Neill provided a brief history of development in the downtown. He
stressed that they would be looking at setting a vision for the downtown area and
be responsible for driving public and private investments. O'Neill explained the
1997 plan elements and the changes that have been seen in the downtown.
Andrew Dresdner, Cuningham Group, introduced himself and explained the
vision of the plan. Dresdner explained that the plan provides guidance in terms of
policies, goals, and objectives. It also provides specific recommendations for
public and private investments. The plan seeks to attract a specific type of
development. Dresdner explained that he hoped the plan would help Monticello to
reclaim their downtown.
7
Dresdner explained that the plan is rooted in economic reality, aspirational with
outreach and steering committee input provided, and a background in known and
successful town building practices. Dresdner noted that walkable, human scale,
and experience based places help downtowns thrive.
Dresdner noted that the 2010 plan was heavily focused on shopping and that the
focus to successful downtowns included more than just shopping, but living, a
mix of businesses, and a mix of human experiences.
The four primary goals of the plan are: shifting the center of town to Broadway
and Walnut, engaging the river more thoroughly, improving the Pine Street
experience for everybody, and infills with many small investments, a few medium
investments, and one or two large investments.
The plan also differs from the 2010 Embracing Downtown Plan because it relies
less on large projects and large property assembly. The Small Area Study relies
more on partnerships and small, incremental investments. It is more supportive of
the traditional form of Broadway with mercantile/retail buildings that face the
sidewalk and street. It incorporates a mix of development and land uses. It also
builds on what people love and value in Monticello.
Dresdner explained that he did not expect all the projects to build out in the next
five to ten years and that it would rely on trends. Dresdner broke down the project
area into four character areas and explained the recommendations for each. The
character areas included: Pine Street, Walnut & Cedar Street, Riverfront, and
Broadway.
Dresdner stated that conversations with MnDOT were held with the consultants
and City Staff to improve Pine Street and understand the feasibility of placing a
traffic signal at Pine Street at 0' Street and closing off the Third Street Boulevard.
Dresdner stated that a similar development would occur along Pine Street. He
stated that the current buildings would be able to continue in use and form, but if
properties would redevelop, buildings should be located at corners with parking in
the center. This would allow greater accessibility and shared parking between
properties. The plan also suggests robust landscaping and moderate setbacks from
sidewalks to parking areas.
Dresdner stated that Walnut Street currently has a lot of open space, with parking
spaces. The plan suggests infilling these areas with quarter and half block
development, primarily being housing.
Dresdner recommended that Walnut Street be completed to River Street. Walnut
Street between River Street and Broadway Street would be designated as a special
street, which would still contain parking. hnprovements to Walnut and Broadway
were proposed such as clear crosswalks and a four-way stop sign. Mid -block
parking and parklets were also proposed. Block 52 was proposed to have a
restaurant and East Bridge Park being redesigned to include an amphitheater.
Dresdner summarized the primary goals of the plan which included: connecting
the grid and connect to the river, enhancing the storefront or main street district
on Broadway to include more small scale retail, entertainment, and/or dining uses,
to development Pine Street as a regional avenue so that it works for more than just
pass through traffic, adding more housing into the core areas of downtown, and to
have a new set of river front parks.
Dresdner highlighted that private property owners could remain where they are
located and operating in the same manner, but the plan indicates that if business
conditions change, if the market conditions change, or the property owners want
to change, that this plan would be an invitation to partner and guide those
properties.
Dresdner explained implementation of the plan. He stated that the Planning
Commission would probably entertain development regulations, parking policy,
complete street discussions, and development plans.
Charlotte Gabler appreciated that the plan was revisited to better handle the
existing property owners that would be staying around for a while. She also added
that parking policy needs to be revisited often. Dresdner indicated that parking is
discussed in the later pages of the plan.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Shawn Grady, owner of Ace Hardware, indicated that the revisions to the plan did
not address his concerns with parking. He was concerned with removing parking
with infill housing. He indicated when special events occur in the City, his
parking is taken up by other non -customers. He also did not believe the shared
parking concept would work for all. Grady also stated that the plan has people
asking him when he is moving his business. Gabler explained that it was the
public official's responsibility to better vocalize what the plan is.
John Murray, property owners of Lucille Murray's Dance Studio, stated he was in
favor of developing downtown Monticello. He liked some of the changes that
were made to the plan, especially for parking. His concerns were with the amount
of traffic along Broadway Street, especially because his clients would be crossing
Broadway Street if parking at the City -owned parking lot. He expressed that
changes to the intersection of Broadway Street and Walnut Street were important.
Murray asked to be flexible in thinking and to not develop to the point where
parking concerns would exist. Murray added the importance of ensuring traffic
concerns would be addressed for safety with any development change.
Dresdner responded to the traffic concerns. He explained that traffic calming
strategies were identified in the plan.
Gabler indicated the next step was application. She asked if the entire downtown
district could be included as a PUD type area. Angela Schumann responded that
flexibility and partnerships could be worked with and that a steering committee
9
would be instrumental in moving the plan forward in terms of zoning ordinance
amendments.
Steve Johnson, private property owner of commercial property in Block 52,
explained that the plan did not adequately represent Monticello. Johnson
explained that the plan seems highly prescriptive and the plan was under -parked,
especially for Block 52. Johnson mentioned some of the history of downtown and
stated that assessments were made to property owners in the downtown for such
improvements such as public parking lots. He also stated his favor of having a
district, similar to a PUD area that would allow flexibility to achieve the highest
and best use of the land. Johnson stated with a PUD, the Planning Commission
and City Council would also have the ability to comment. Johnson also suggested
keeping with three parking spaces per thousand square feet.
Hearing no further comments, Brad Fyle closed the public hearing.
Fyle indicated the difficulty in making it safe to cross Broadway Street and the
overall implementation of the plan.
Dresdner explained that MnDOT stated that they would be willing to place curb
extensions along Broadway Street. Discussion about a four-way stop sign at
Walnut Street and Broadway Street was also discussed. Dresdner stated crossing
Broadway Street was well within reach and possible, per discussions with the
State, County, and City Staff. Dresdner stated that this plan was for the people
that live in Monticello, not the people passing through. Dresdner also added that
parking changes occur incrementally. Evaluation would need to occur with any
incremental parking changes.
Schumann indicated that the Parks Commission and EDA board both
unanimously recommended approval of the plan.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA PLAN TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AS PRESENTED, BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC -
2017 -028. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Housing Market Report 2017
Angela Schumann stated that the Monticello EDA had a contract with WSB &
Associates to help prepare economic development strategies, which included
preparing an update to the current housing stock. A housing study has been
prepared and reviewed by the EDA. She stated that the housing study would
provide useful background infonnation to help inform land use decisions
residential in nature and as the Planning Commission considers a new Land Use
Plan in 2018.
10
Brad Fyle asked who wanted the plan to happen. Schumann stated that the EDA
acts as the City's housing and redevelopment authority and that they were looking
for a better platfonn for understanding Monticello's housing stock and inventory
to base their decision making.
Kurt Bearinger introduced himself and Jim Gromberg from WSB & Associates
and presented the report. Bearinger indicated that by 2020, Monticello was
expected to be close to 15,000 people with an additional average growth of 179
per year. The median value for single family housing value was set at about
$180,000, with 16 percent of units having a value of $250,000 or more. Bearinger
stated that housing costs in Monticello were relatively affordable, however nearly
half of Monticello's renters were burdened by expenses. It was stated that
Monticello has a good mix of owner occupied versus rental compared to county
and state trends. Bearinger stated they believed the housing demand would
continue. Recommendations included monitoring rental vacancy rates and
availability, conversion of vacant units to rental properties, maintaining a low
housing cost, increasing affordable rental housing inventory to maintain options,
ensuring adequate amounts of owner/rental units for higher -income individuals
looking to downsize, and increasing senior housing options.
Brad Fyle explained that the report indicated that some of the rental rates were
$200 and asked if that was after assistance or if that anybody could rent at that
rate. Gromberg explained that it would be after government assistance.
Marc Simpson asked what the number of available housing lots. Gromberg stated
that it was not a part of the study, but estimated that it was under one hundred.
John Alstad asked what the barriers to converting vacant homes into rental
properties. Gromberg suggested looking on a block basis at the homes and their
value. Then the City can step in to determine how to facilitate and get the best use
out of sites. Gromberg stated that the EDA discussed how to move forward with
programs to assist property owners.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the EDA had a plan for converting vacant homes into
rental properties. Schumann stated that the EDA wanted the foundation found in
the plan first before voting on any programs. She stated that the EDA would
probably look at a mixed approach such as a transformation home loan program
along the core of downtown.
The Planning Commission was not asked to make any formal decision on the
plan.
B. Consideration to call for a public hearing on Monticello ZoninE Ordinance
Chapter 4, Section 13 — Telecommunication Towers and Antennas as related
to Small Cell and Wireless Telecommunication standards
Angela Schumann stated that the Minnesota Legislature saw the need for a change
to wireless telecommunications support. Schumann explained that the City needs
11
to respond to how to manage wireless telecommunication structures in public
rights-of-way.
Fyle asked if the League of Minnesota Cities was recommending the changes.
Schumann stated that the League provided two memos and recommended city's
look at their right-of-way ordinances or adopt right -of -ordinance (which the City
of Monticello does not have) and to look at related ordinances such as
telecommunications towers and antennas.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3RD, FOR AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 13 —
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS AND RELATED
SECTIONS AS RELATED TO SMALL CELL AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDS. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report and
provided an update on recent action decisions.
Schumann noted the unveiling of a new Swan sculpture at the intersection of
Broadway and Highway 25 sponsored by the EDA, Ellison Family members, and
Sue Seeger. Schumann also thanked the Parks Department for their work on the
landscaping.
Schumann lastly noted that GTS was hosting a number of educational trainings
for Planning Commissioners if interested.
Added Items
Charlotte Gabler asked about the monument sign located at Broadway Crossing.
Angela Schumann stated that staff would look at the shape and maintenance as it
relates to the City Code.
4. Added Items
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 PM.
SECONDED THE MOTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: October Yd, 2017
Attest: PIA, 'L,
0 U 12
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
13