The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 06-02-2020AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Meeting will occur in person at the Monticello Community Center with recommended social distancing procedures in place for the Commission, applicants, and public. Commissioners: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — May Sth, 2020 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda E. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for variance to the required 10' side yard setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District in the R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District. Applicant: Sandra K Lichty B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for an approximately 432 square foot addition for a residential attached Accessory Use Structure — Major in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District. Applicant: Joseph Michael Osborn 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision in an R-2 (Single and Two Family) Residence to create two parcels. Applicant: Patricia Olson B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 5th, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Due to recommendations related to the COVID-19 virus, the Planning Commission meeting was conducted as a remote/virtual meeting. Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order ` Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. Sam Murdoff completed a roll call for attendance and noted all Commissioners and Council Liaison Charlotte Gabler present. B. Consideration of approvin� minutes a. Re�ular Meetin� Minutes — April 7th, 2020 JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — APRIL 7TH, 2020. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. C. Citizen Comments N/A. D. Consideration of addin� items to the a�enda No items were added to the Planning Commission agenda. Angela Schumann provided a quick overview of the agenda and citizen comments for public hearings. It was noted that all motions would be made by roll call vote. E. Consideration to approve a�enda JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for detached accessorv structure in an A-O (A�riculture/Open Space) District to accommodate an open, covered patio over existin� outdoor entertainment space Applicant: Monticello Countrv Club, Inc. Steve Grittman introduced the item and explained that the request was for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of their clubhouse for a pavilion. He noted that the space is currently a concrete patio and the design Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 1 � 7 would include open sides and be similar in appearance to the Club House. The expansion would occur to the east of the existing Club House and be attached. In the past, a temporary tent was placed in this area and the proposed structure would be permanent. Grittman explained that an amendment to CUP was required because the site was changing. Grittman explained the staff report in detail. He stated that the zoning is A-O (Agriculture/Open Space) and the surrounding zoning is primarily residential. It was noted that the land to the west of I-94 is undeveloped or industrial. Grittman stated that landscaping exists around the concrete area and would remain if the proposed structure were approved. Grittman said that the application was consistent with the zoning district and CUP requirements. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions noted in Exhibit Z. It was noted that the applicant was not providing exterior lighting for the expansion. The Engineering Department did not provide an official comment letter as no new impervious would be created with the proposal resulting in no change to grading or drainage. Paul Konsor asked what triggers the CUP. Grittman responded that the use of the country club was approved under a CUP, any functional change to building or improved areas require a new CUP or amendment to CUP. The purpose of CUP requirements is to mitigate any impacts that may result from the proposal. It was noted that a setback of 89 feet was shown on the site plans that showed the distance from the expansion to the townhouses. John Alstad asked if the addition of landscaping should be part of the Exhibit Z comments. Grittman responded that it was recommendation 2 in Exhibit Z, including replacement of the visual screening if the fence proposed to be removed is not replaced. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Dan Frie, 214 Jerry Leifert Drive, the applicant, noted that the existing clubhouse was built in 1989. They had a temporary awning over the area, but due to a storm, it was destroyed. Frie noted that with the pandemic, a lot of business changes have occurred and he was unsure of the immediate use of the proposed space. He explained that members of the Country Club would contribute to building the space. The clubhouse has not had any additions since its opening in 1989. He indicated he would confirm whether the fence was to be replaced. Murdoff asked the applicant if he had any concerns from the comments in Exhibit Z. Frie stated that he was okay with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 2 � 7 Sam Murdoff closed the public hearing. He asked staff if they received any comments. Angela Schumann noted that no email or written comments had been received. Decision 1. Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Building Addition. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-013, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION AND ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED 1N EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. EXHIBIT Z CUP Amendment for Monticello Country Club 1209 Golf Course Road PID: 155-030-000010, 155-500-033300, 155-500-034301, 155-500-101202, 155-500-101204, 155-500-101205, 155-500-102101 1. The applicant provides a lighting plan for the verification of compliance with code as a requirement of building permit application. 2. A visual buffer be added either around the canopy area, or in the area of the residential uses to the southeast of the site. This may include reconstruction of the fence, or other means approve by Community Development staff. 3. Other conditions of City staff and officials. B. Public Hearin� — Request for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for hei�ht for a 40' buildin� silo addition and Variance to the required 50' side and rear vard setback Applicant: Copperhead Industries, LLC (Tim Burmis) Steve Grittman introduced the item and noted that the application was for CUP and variance. A CUP was being sought to accommodate an accessory structure of a materials silo with a height of 40 feet. It was noted that the property owner could construct an accessory structure up to 30 feet with a building permit, but because it exceeded the height, it was necessary for a CUP. A variance was being sought to the required setback to a 30-foot setback Normally, the setback in the I- 1(Light Industrial) is 15 feet, but because the parcel is adj acent to zoning districts other than an industrial, the setback is 50 feet. The applicant is seeking a setback of 30 feet to accommodate their proposed project. Grittman indicated that the subj ect parcel is surrounded by a mix of zoning districts including: PUD Districts for both institutional, commercial, and residential uses, I-1 (Light Industrial), and I-2 (Heavy Industrial). Grittman explained that the proposed silo would be located near the northeast corner of the existing building and would be screened by existing evergreen trees. Staff believed that little to no impacts of the proposed silo would exist to the public right-of-way or adjacent properties because of the existing building and Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 3 � 7 landscaping screening (both on site and adjacent sites such as Mills F1eetFarm, which includes a stormwater pond). Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subj ect to the conditions of Exhibit Z. Grittman then explained the variance request and noted that the proposed building expansion would eliminate the current outdoor storage space that exists on the property. He stated that the additional setback requirement is imposed to protect surrounding non-industrial uses from potential negative impacts. Grittman noted that the adj acent Mills Fleet Farm and school district property have existing landscaping buffers. Those adj acent properties at their nearest point to the property lines contain open field uses to the south and ponding and landscaping to the east. Staff believed that there would be little to no impact on both of these adjacent sites. He added that there would likely be less impacts after the construction of the expansion, as no outside storage would exist. Staff recommended approval of the variance per the test criteria with comments explained in Exhibit Z. Grittman noted that the site would be compliant as it exists with the proposed expansion for parking supply and plantings. Grittman explained that the Planning Commission acts as the Board of Zoning Appeals and would decide on the variance without a recommendation to City Council. Sam Murdoff asked if the building was constructed prior to the adoption of the 50-foot setback requirement. Grittman confirmed and added that the setback requirement was likely an additional requirement brought forward with the updated code. Murdoff also asked for clarification on why the 30-foot height maximum exists in the code. Grittman explained that the height standard related to aesthetics and firefighting issues. Grittman also stated that the 30-foot height maximum requirement was probably an archaic standard and that it would be reasonable for the City to consider a future amendment to the code. He noted that most industrial businesses are looking for buildings taller than 30 feet. Paul Konsor asked about Exhibit Z, Item 3 regarding the landscaping. He asked what would happen if the landscaping would need to come down for various reasons, such as a storm. Grittman stated that it would be required to replace trees in the locations per the approved plan. He added that new trees wouldn't be able to replace mature, existing trees in height right away. It would be acknowledged that sometimes landscape plantings take some time before they effect the complete screen. Angela Schumann added that the City has adopted a work plan to review all CUP approvals from the past one to three years to ensure compliance with the conditions per the approved CUP. Konsor also asked for clarification on Exhibit Z, Item 5. Grittman explained that the Fire Chief and City staff will work with the applicant to make sure the building is properly protected and may include new fire hydrant locations. Konsor Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 4 � 7 asked if there is a standard for who pays for such improvements when a building expansion occurs. Grittman noted that the condition was more advisory at this point and that the City has adopted a fire code standard. It was noted that the Fire Department would continue to review for proper fire protection and that any business would have to comply to the fire code regardless of if a CUP was approved. John Alstad asked for clarification on the material that would be stored in silo. Grittman noted that it was resin beads use to make copper wire sheathing. Alstad asked if the material was non-flammable. Grittman responded that the material was solid, rather than liquid and that the material would have its own analysis from a fire protection standard. Alstad asked for clarification on the parking lot configuration. Grittman reiterated that more than adequate parking existing on the site even with the proposed expansion. There would also be additional parking lot space, should the business owner need to expand. Alstad asked about loading information. Grittman confirmed that the loading information was located on the north side of the building. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Jeff Atwood, President of Copperhead Industries and the applicant, 9530 Fallon Avenue NE, introduced himself and explained that his business has been in Monticello since 2004. Copperhead Industries is a tracer wire company that puts together complete utility locating systems to help locate underground non- metallic utilities. Atwood indicated that over the past 15 years, the company has continued to see growth. They would like to shift manufacturing from third source parties and bring that production to the Monticello facility. Atwood noted that in November, 2020, the company began purchasing the equipment to be able to complete the manufacturing in-house. He explained that the company is seeking the expansion of 7,300 square feet to increase pallet spaces to house 270 to 280 pallets. Atwood also added that it would increase capacity at the Monticello location of shipping 6 to 65 percent of the cost of goods over the next two years. There would also be the addition of a minimum of seven new employment opportunities. They were hoping to complete the expansion in the summer and fall of this year. Murdoff asked the applicant if he reviewed the comments in Exhibit Z. Atwood confirmed and stated they would comply with those conditions. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Schumann asked for clarification on the silo height as the indication on height provided was between 40 and 45 feet. Atwood indicated that it would not exceed 45 feet and could make either height work. Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 5 � 7 Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the decision related to the CUP for height. It was encouraged that the Planning Commission make a decision with a height maximum identified. Decision 1. Conditional Use Permit to exceed the height limit of 30 feet in the I-1 Light Industrial District. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2020-015 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30 FEET TO 45 FEET, BASED ON FINDINGS STATED 1N THE RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1N EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Decision 2. Variance from the side yard setback of 50 feet; and the rear yard setback of 50 feet. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2020-014 APPROVING THE VARIANCE OF THE SUB7ECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW ENCROACHIV�NT 1NT0 THE 50-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE 50 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AS PROPOSED TO APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET EACH. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. EXHIBIT Z Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances Conditional Use Permit for Building Height Exceeding 30 Feet Copperhead Industries 9530 Fallon Ave NE All exterior lighting must comply with the City's requirements. 2. The pervious areas remaining after construction has been completed shall be finished with seed or sod. Existing landscape tree plantings shall remain as a part of the project. 4. Comments and conditions from the City Engineer. 5. Comments from the Fire Chief, including those related to fire hydrant location. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Communitv Development Director's Report Angela Schumann summarized the Community Development Director's Report. Schumann detailed the Small Business Resource calls. She explained the resiliency of businesses in Monticello and their flexibility in adapting their business to the needs of their customers. She noted that businesses shared their challenges they are facing. Advice and information sharing were provided to Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 6 � 7 encourage businesses to connect with their accountants and bankers to understanding financial assistance through federal and state programs. 4. Added Items SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY' S INDUSTRIAL HEIGHT MAXINIUM REQUIREMENT. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 5. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:28 P.M. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder: Approved Attest: Jacob Thunander June 2nd, 2020 Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — May Sth, 2020 Page 7 � 7 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 2A. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for variance to the required 10' side vard setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District in the R-1 (Sin�le- Familv Residence) District. Applicant: Sandra K Lichtv (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: Lot 1, Block 59 Original Plat of Monticello (abbreviated) Address: 725 West River Street, Monticello, MN 2020-013 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: Side yard setback variance for proposed garage addition June 27m, 2020 Places to Live (Residential) R-1, Single Family Residence District Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District Single Family Residence Mississippi River R-1, Single Family Residence District R-2, Single and Two Family Residence District R-1, Single Family Residence District Project Description: The applicant's property consists of a single-family home with an attached single car garage which is accessed from West River Street. The existing garage is considered "legally nonconforming" by reason of setback The applicant wishes to replace the existing garage with a new, larger garage. In addition, the applicant is seeking to demolish an existing deck in the rear yard and build an addition onto the home along with a new deck. The subject site is in the Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District. Therefore, both the underlying R-1 zoning and the overlay zoning requirements are applied to this application. The existing garage presently has a setback that abuts the side property line on the west side of the property. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 The processing of a variance is necessary to accommodate the construction of a new garage with setbacks less than ten feet from a property line, as required in the MWSRR District. It should be noted that the R-1 zoning for a garage on a side yard is six feet, which the applicant's survey meets; however, the stricter standard of ten feet is applied. ANALYSIS Variance Consideration. Variance requests are required to meet specific standards to be considered for approval. Those standards are summarized as a situation where there are conditions unique to the property, not created by the applicant, which create practical difficulties in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable use. To accommodate the construction of the proposed garage, the processing of setback variance is necessary. The existing garage on the property exhibits a side yard setback that abuts the west side lot line. This is significantly less than the minimum ten-foot setback requirement imposed within the applicable Wild and Scenic Overlay District. The City's variance evaluation criteria is provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance and reiterated below. Also provided is a Staff response to each criterion. (4) Review (a) T�ariance Criteria. Approval of a T�ariance may only be made upon a determination thatpractical difficulties will result based on all of the following criteria: (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied. Response: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a two car garage. The applicant has noted that it will be a small two car garage by today's standards. The existing garage is single-car. Staff feels that the request is reasonable as single car garages are no longer adequate. Moreover, the proposed garage will increase the setback to meet the underlying R-1 district standards in the Original Plat area. (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. Response: In this case, the unique circumstance is the change from a virtual zero-setback condition to six feet, which complies with the underlying zoning requirement. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 (iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. Response: The lot was formed prior to the current Wild and Scenic Overlay standards. The circumstances were not created by the property owner. (iv) A T�ariance, if gr�anted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variance request will be an improvement since the current building setback abuts the property line. The new garage will not alter the essential character of the locality and will be similar to other properties in the area. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a T�ariance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. Response: This is not the case with this variance request. While many proj ects, including this one, can be viewed as economically favorable to the applicant, such considerations are only a limited feature of this variance request. Gara�e Dimensions. The existing garage measures 12 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, attached to the house via a breezeway. The new garage will be 16 feet wide and 24 feet in depth. The proposed garage dimensions, while larger, will be setback farther from the side property line than the existing garage. Gara�e and Drivewav Location. The existing garage is located on the west side of the house and is accessible via a concrete driveway from West River Street. The applicant is proposing to expand the driveway toward the east. The garage will by compliant with a width of 22 feet at the property line. Staff is recommending that the curb cut be redesigned to meet the three-foot side yard setback The garage will still be accessed from West River Street. This is subj ect to further review by the City Engineer. Buildin� Materials. It is presumed that the proposed garage will utilize the same roofing and siding as that of the principal building. This should, however, be confirmed by the applicant. Details of the specific building materials shall be provided by the applicant for review and is a recommended condition of variance approval. Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlav District. Properties within the MWSRR Overlay District must not exceed 25% impervious surface. The proposed garage and home addition will be 14.2% impervious. This is not counting the driveway, proposed front yard deck, and the proposed rear yard deck Assuming the driveway is paved, the total impervious surface will be 18.5%. As a condition of approval, the ground under the decks must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.) in order to allow stormwater to percolate into the ground. 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 As noted, the applicant is also proposing to construct a deck toward the river side of the home. Such decks (and other improvements) are required to meet a 100 foot setback from the bluffline of the river. In this case, the proposed setback appears to be approximately 107 feet from the bluff - complying with the standard as designed. DNR Review. The DNR reviewed the variance request. The DNR did not have any obj ections to the proj ect but requested that the applicant has a formal impervious surface calculation done to confirm compliance with the 25% impervious surface requirement. Further, the DNR recommended that water retention features be added to control the increased rate of discharge. These will be conditions of approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2020-016 approving the setback variance for the Lichty garage at 725 West River Street, based on findings in said resolution, and pursuant to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2020-016, based on findings identified by the Planning Commission following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC 2020-016, subject to submission of additional information from staff or applicant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends Alternative 1, approval of the variance. As noted, the proposed garage would be located farther off the side yard setback from the existing garage that will be removed as part of the project. The applicant's desire to provide a standard size garage in order to accommodate the indoor storage of yard equipment is considered reasonable. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2020-016 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Survey and Proposed Improvements E. Site Images Z. Conditions of Approval 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 EXHIBIT Z Sandra K Lichty Variance to Side Yard Setback in M�VSRR Overlay District 725 West River Street Applicant verifies that materials for the proposed garage will match those of the existing primary structure on the property. 2. The ground under the decks must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.) The curb-cut shall be setback three (3) feet from the side yard property line, along with the paved driveway. 4. Contractor to maintain current drainage patterns. 5. Engineering Department will require a driveway permit prior to expansion of driveway. 6. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 725 WEST RIVER STREET; LOT 1, BLOCK 59, ORIGINAL PLAT WHEREAS, Sandra K Lichty is requesting a variance to the setback requirements from the side- yard property line in the R-1, Single Family District and Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District to be able to construct an attached garage; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site survey illustrating the location of the proposed addition on the property for review; and WHEREAS, the existing garage is located within the required setback, but can not be reasonably relocated to a conforming position on the parcel; and WHEREAS, the existing garage is insufficient in size to provide access to a typical passenger vehicle for common residential parking and/or storage purposes; and WHEREAS, the proposed garage will meet the R-1 setback of 6 feet for the area, but will not be able to meet the applicable MWSRR setback of 10 feet; and WHEREAS, site conditions support the requested setback variance based on the finding that practical difficulties result from the configuration of the subj ect parcel inability to make reasonable use of the existing garage structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2"d, 2020 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the approval of the variance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in improving the property in a reasonable manner, due to the configuration of the lot and inadequate area of the existing garage, which limit reasonable expansion to other directions; and 2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area. 3. The existing home and other expansions constitute reasonable use of the subj ect property. 4. The relocated garage construction will improve consistency with zoning requirements by meeting the R-1 setback. The proposed addition will be consistent with neighboring structures in size and setback from the bluff line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the requested variance is approved based on the conditions provided in Exhibit Z of the referenced staff planning report, as follows: Applicant verifies that materials for the proposed garage will match those of the existing primary structure on the property. 2. The ground under the decks must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.) The curb-cut shall be setback three (3) feet from the side yard property line, along with the paved driveway. 4. Contractor to maintain current drainage patterns. 5. Engineering Department will require a driveway permit prior to expansion of driveway. 6. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 2"d day of June, 2020, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION I� ATTEST: Sam Murdoff, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director o _ � . a� � '� ,�s '` #r � ;,k�` � �- � � �� ,�'�' � p v . - .`f "` �'� �, -++ �� ,, �, . W 4� o � r �� 'a � o�, r�,x�= � �r' �`�{,F� �1_ � �i ' { a. a'�' I � �� i" � . u � �,��.. ��:.: � f �,� � T � � � ,� �'� . .y � .�� ,�3�7 '��F- a-�+ . � ! � i' �. � !f, C'' �J. i�'" � . U '�,''�, , y� {y�j. y. .� � ��.c �{ ,,��,,_ �.. v� .� # �� . �� —� ,� � , s � -� �`" � ;'��,�; �; ,� � �� i; ' .� .� ' ' �; � . ,. � � {�T�. t ' �:r � '" �� - , s ,�c "?'' r .� � �� w � ^... � . i '�' � " §` , ,�, � s � �: r 4 . t �µ ,^ aiF � � � � , ti� �� :� � � '�� f h, �I � • �i. '��(�, ', , � �- #„ �yF-_ ,�. , C'f � �'� _ &� �� ; , s' :,,r+, �w: :: � , �, �-..�;— . k � �°' �', � � R � . �, � � � °^ � , �i �� '� J. F`� y� , '�• �• . ,; �ti ,� � ",( ,r, . . � . �' �y=., � G] . � . �, �. 3 �' " h� � . rY ' � ��, ��,�� ^ �'�A�'� .� �� ' � ,�.;{r'�+ � �� 1�• j' f ?� ' � r , ;. f �� ..� � `'� r rs r ,. . . Ay# �..� �" ♦, y.,�.k. '�� +�`� . .'P S� r+�i: �� ° . .�;� � i3i .� `' ,��I d � ti,�',,. �M f ''� +'� � �, `� �'�. �,i"."� -� � �,f �' �, .•� � t;..., � -�r m k � , � f .� N ��.� �,� r •'� w �,!! < f + L f,.S. � v ° � � : ; � ;;� . �:�. . , =�;,�,�, �' '� ° , s.� ` .�, � � =. � ; �, *� ?�. �` �' � ,.��. .,� , . �. ' ,� �` �� , � �'� ��; , � � . _ � �� ,�"�- � .. �., N � � ��`�y��y'�� +� �� e ��"1 Lr �7,.• .� r: � � ; � .e'� ,. _ fi �,al+" . . F 4 � �i .(�'_,� _ , s. :. � �.•. . . � � r ��1 �n%'� rti *� .� • -�s � '�T�� .. V p '� � � 1'f � .w � w]� �� .. � ,• ` � �; � ` =� � O �. *''' �',�' �try� � �'��-' a� � .,�� . .� �°�� r�� + � � L ` � !_ ��•J " , `+�' ~ ,? �`; i"',� � C6 O � + � �� ,'�� $ ;'� . � V' `.�,�,i {r y/�I' `� � O � � /•4. ^°` �I �� '.C'""��p,�7..�'�' . � N �R 0 � � ��, �: ` � , , ��: :� D �' � fi � `� � � -� "� °- .; , ^►.,. _ v � � '� r � � e . � �] �'.'"� (n � as��[: ` � ' � �.c p �'''� ��, � � ! � � fa _ F ti _ . °�. � av -.$._ . M � � `�ti � a � ' ��'•.: � s' h ��; � re�. �,�, •�V , w,, ,, . . / � � �4. � .�j ,. �(�+� :m• . l�� •� s �.;�. � r �r •, � . .,� ��. � . � - � ;�� r� _ � , . � p� � _� �� .�. ` , �r � ' �;;;. 1s�yj° ''� � � � , � �.�,� , � � �"' e ri, � � _� � � hj-�e. �,,_..r w � � " ,. �� r{= �� 1 � � � � � N � !.' +�r.r �� ` � �� ' ,��, �, � � . �, � � -� ��►"�. J i `� `�-' F`,� ' � �. �� tl�� c6 ` pA ��.. ��r�, h;&qr;:r � �� ,� F. Y4J "�' , � ' . y�;,, w��_ ,n , -. � ,,,� • � C6 J �� l •Y A + � �` ' � � • o. L i� �� :�:a: � � +a �� . � �, iit `tl�dw j �h � ` � � � � � � �� ,� � fiF�4 � � a� �'�' ��``� �� ' � �. � � � .� _� � �;.. .. �, .� . , �. . , � � . } �+. c� � � � � � _ .�� . _ - , — � J � a` �� 4 ' � � �„'; . "rlr ♦ ` 'r "�c_ }' . r �uane & Sandy Lichty April 26, 202� 725 West River Street We purchased this house in February, 2012, as a landing place when we came to visit our son and his growing family. It is affectionately known as the River Cottage, thanks to our daughter-in-Iaw. Over the past 8 years, we have taken this house bui�t in 1944, nnd added and completed smnll renovutions to it ns we continue to "Innd" here on weekends and visited family. In the past three years this has become home for Sandy as she secured a job in Monticello and Duane still lives nnd works in Iowa. Our v+sion for this house has become, through living here, to retire in this home by the river as we continue to make memories. And here, is where the rubber meets the road. This story nnd u half, two bedroom and one bathroom house of 1,100 square feet, needs to provide more livable space on the main floor. In its day, this 1944 cottnge provided a livable sized space for families 70+ yenrs ngo. In order to provide accessibility for all people, a mnster bedroom and bath, a half bathroom, and Inundry on the main floor is the reasonable answer for today's lifestyle. An additional change includes demolishing the breezeway and small garage to add a larger garage in order to accommodnte the current size and number of vehicles that most people currently own, as well ns lawn cnre equipment. This is a unique property in that its width seems rather narrow compared to the length from street to the river in back. This home is nlso unique in the way the property's elevation begins to drop considernbly as you walk toward the river. When this home wns built 7 decades ago, the zoning regulations and guidelines were quite different and accommodated the world that families lived in at that time. We are asking permission to modify this home, with the lenst amount of distraction and change to the front by adding u new gnrage that will be 16 feet wide and the length of the current house front to back. Becnuse the current garage sits nearly on or on the property line, we need to be offset that line nnd are requesting the amount of spnce from the property line to the gnrage wall be 6 feet at the most. While that is a smull double garage, the property does not allow for a typical double garage size. We believe the length of the property can accommodate ndding the mnster bed and bathroom and moving the living room to the current deck area which will then make room for the laundry nnd half bath to become part of the main floor. The addition of a deck, the size of the current deck we had built a few years ago, will not cause a street view change of the property and the rear view will be similar to its current state with the deck on the house. Thank you for considering our request for the modifications to the property. If there are questions or further clarification needed, please contact either Sandy or Duane. �---------- ��' �, � A � �" 9� I y `yy" I �\ r! . 5. a� n i 1 �� ; I� __ � � i 1 ��—E —r-�j��.�"�: �__..�_I-__„� ` ; i—.,L ' I" ` i i I ' i i � ��. � � y W � � a � � `� o pJ � ` Q M � � � f °i w �� O � � oZ � r^ � o � v� ~ � m� w A � a � d � ` U � � i!d z � p� o VI nt O � 0� N w O W r^ Q �� O W�L v,� � dG cUi� � i o � [ > > z �, o fa,` [ A � oo � � C�1 = p �� a w w . Oi r}I � � Q � o o "' o°� o 0 � � � �� W N'� C Ol c7 0 "' o � � a >.o ._ oi N N y^� II �, w � � T� � ? � t�o � � O �� " O U C � O y Qi � Z L t (Y � m��' V �I �`v°,3 � A / � � O J / ry / / b \� Q� � / O� O�ti � / �� w4 0� � e� ti� �� / � � �� , �� p� h�� 0 �l� ryp,nZ o / �°� �r�ti �� a� / � '/\ � , ti x a °� � ? i�; " '''�.� � `� �i7 �(Q /�0�0�0 /�� /��„�o P/ N/� dH� � � `�'�(y� l�iJ��t,i �o' / 6 � 9 � �' `O £2pr � � � Z t�4�� ii � y ��0�� / � x o \ �. � � �� q0 I /x � � \ \ (vo � P� � \ �''oa p� � iP °T o��F�° oz � s�Z�x ^ Q��,00 0 0 � � � s<°\ �P h Q°y�o� °z � 5� � � Q�pOp ry� �� \ \ Q. OZ �Q ��h�4�� /X ��Z ss z8t � � „ �2 / � W J� >Q �p '��i U �n ¢ �o o� �W OW �� W W Q�ti QO 40 2 o� � 2ti 2W 0 �Uy , 0 �oo �S �00 0�4 0 � oN Q � a �� a�o ow 3az �_� O�� Wao �� o¢ oz� a z ao� a� rSo �' ¢ � a'^ ,� ,� a �� F U � � �o� =}o �Z � � � ��O w�> U �� mo� �w� Wg� Z ma }�� oJ�'� / � /� � h � i �� SQ � � � � z°z8 sO � �/ / �CLr,_ \� a ''y \ S yz 0 5�" � � }�� Z�� w �f � � N � � � b (� .:$V'� ��J' 4i O �y J� n ,o Q�o: � .,. C�.. �`S "S'Fg 9 "ti . e . �,� 4y� � 9 ry �� SO�y�'id� � \ �`'�,l �o� ° � �b� �d�do � bJb, oy� o� � � � °ti�s'°'o �/ o�e� / �r,, � \ Q�-� Qo \ e � � , � � � ' a \ � � 2 g k / W � / � \ � � �i \ 08 $ �h / � D �� QO Og ► � Y U W 0 � � O a a a a 0 0 0 0 I ro v � � . .. . , . . - — - . � i �� , . � . � ' 1 y �� _ ' i - , - - ` , ��. � __- i, � � � p — �� • � - , Iq i ��," � � � � � - e � a. d I � � � ' w. � ., �.� . . � � ' � �. ��. � � �r� � �� ;� � � ��r� ��I I � � . _ , . � ��'� � � -� � � -� F-�� - r��°� , � � � �� 7 �;f � � � �� . - .�. -�� -� � � � � . � - - - �.. . � . : .. �. e ��- .;� �.� �. �� ; .. .. , : ,' . ti ' �5.: � �., _; �1 q � . + � � . ....e , y, � � . ...,�s . '- � � . • ,. � � � •� �.� 1 t —�.. •. r� F �.:, � ��. 4, i ° , � F� � ',:. •° , � � �s .. : ' � �' O �'., � ' '� s . - , �S _, '4n,• : 1 i . 4 , e ti . , � , ., �' . ��., g � k� ..�,. � �� _ . . . . . s �` q, . •a � � ��j�R r� 1 , 'Y. T� " � '�. �� +,7:� `�� p. =,y •. - •�� _ ` . � ' ' 3y{ 4 . . ._ ., � F'�' 7 �rtY�S � � !1 ��` .ti ti�i�., ' . , � 1 h .y � r... .. `-•�6 : �i,� . ti_� =�ti. q,'. °.' ,4 4 �.,� _ . . .. , n �, ll'� � c , ^..� . .. � . . . s . .. � , ... .., Y r : ..,, • � • �. � � -.I .._ � . . �. ' . . . S . - � n. � � - . �'RS = _ e � . . e �. � ' � M y=� �ti - �� '",��: t 1.;;'� .� -e : , ' _. + '....` y � -... �x� • 1! - ,. � o �� o � �w, � �, � , �-- I �L � ��d , 4_�� _�:� � �� . . . . � , � ° ... ' . 6 # � � �'� 6 � v '1 � • .a . . �::. . . . Y.. � �; 1._ —� _ �e . .. e . . . �i�l � . " ^ - � I,.a� i':. � �-� . y��• . '�'-�_ r , . �; . Y �., ° � � N � � - - �� i F c � - ' - • � . � ` . . � : �- � � . Y � � � Y1 M � - -<_ '_ �� ' —�I 1 , _. — _ _ �� 1 f I II w � � � � � ° � � �� 4�� ,, r-s-�.— , �� '• I ,�� y� �� &� � � � � � � � �.� � ; � I � �� t:�.� f- � ��' �� '- � ��; `�� y �� .. � :� � � ti��i� tl � �: ��'� R �� ,� � .��1 I � �� . -. ��_ � � � . . . . . . ��,� � . � � � �..,: � T � � � _� _� a �. � � � �� . � . :� . a �� ' ';r ,,:� � �� .�, � �� ; .�, e � � _ ;��.. , , ��—� �.� �. �- � �� I� �.,, . _ � — � . + �� ' ' �.+� - °"� _ � �� ;��' �' � :. � .� � , . . ° ._ _r� � y . � v . ..l– `- , .. �.� a .. .. �� . ' � .n� � �_ ±�� s� �. � '� � � � �� a . 4 � � �� _ . � � � ,� I tY . '�. - �`� y� ' I � ' `, � . �� . �� . . . � � � � ., � j , . ,; � " . �'#°. e , �- ,,, . . �: k °�� r ��' ' � �. . . �� -�� _�.�. . . ; � � r�;� , . �, _ ��,._ � — � �. '� '� r �� ' � � �� — , � ., � �.� � . �-� - ..� ,:�' . �-� • +r� r � �� "�� . � � r � � . a �i �� O � � , . :,_-� '— —. , �' � r� � . _� . � ; • . � � - � . � �� ti � � —� _ . ��—`�— � ��; ,, :�, — � � � "� � , � � � �` e 1. . . 7 � , . . . � X •� � � — � a � �� ,. � ;; � � . � �� .7 . � .p� ..�. .. � .. �- . . . ' ., . .. . � ��° � � � � �� '�� . � ° �� , � � . . � ; , . . ��,�� I�rt _ —_ — . , _� T � . . . � � . s y _� � ��w � . n �1 � � 1 � _�M- � � �. � p, � � Yt.�F , _�� ,� r � •�� •. � � , q�r! R� , � � ` � � , i, �. ; .,p�_ � ,�° .; - ..,, . �.�..{�.. -}S�� '9 . � �..�i;ai .�.�� 6-:.: �_.aeS�A., �.rt� - � e � �.^'d, .�" F �� f-. � � �.x ``�� .e; � .. - �� ,. � .Eil� ...��.�M P, _ 6 �.��1. . ��r T '�'3-. - ,}• _ � _�. i �i� - � a. . r, �,�.� .- - - -_ ti .. . � T �.' I 1'ai �, • n'' �!!. . . -y� ..-; � y¢�� " s. y -.mq x k` .�_ �'. 1 � p�� # ��; ... r �� , � r�'_} �� ' �. �" :� i��, �� . i, i i �, '�'� . ti'` ° -¢ -. ;� � -� � . - �' � • _. �,, . '� ,- . . ,. � } . � � ;� r �. •;� � •� y � � - "� '�`'�` � � � , `�:� � �, .,��. �.��, � �: � . .s �r �S� ' �, r - � � � � � � � �J�• � �c` � � �� ,� � .� � 6�'.r� .� P p '.o. ��' • � 6n5 <� � - ' � � � � : � � �`+'�- � � � �� , . T .�� : . �-� �, - * 't' : s �r ` ° '� '.��t `+ ' = ti. "� •' �;'+} e � . �. ��' �I � — ' '�', y _ M j,,� • � � �� la, psb. � r .!�' "3� a r ..,b••, .- R ti•�:'� � �'��.e� "'�'a d�s _ ��, � ��• � � . ^ � _�e � s .� - 4,*�'� I �7 ,��. a � � � . .. at� �•�+e �'�' ,� �- �r � - . .' �� i -,��G n fi'' _ �, { , . y� .: .� L i i °�-�� ' � � � �'' F �_� � -'. m. e ' .a. . �.:,. �dy. � +� ' "� ��t � �� . �� i,`, � �a . _ # r 5 T - � • - �, r . R, � �� ' ,� * Y � , . � I � �� , �' ,• t n �, F _ � �. �� I.{�� i�r+ � � r � .�� k', • _�� j �;. ,�,�� `� �"� _ � ,ti. +. � r , �,_ ,°�. '. r � � 4 ��d� ti - �4g • . . , - _ � � .�� "; : y ��+ aG �. ti � " �'�� '� � r �u ' �" Ir �'�`�� ry -a ,, F . „ 'r*r�-" �'� F'{. �dsi . � - III �' � ' �1" a . y � . - , � � F � _ _ _ �� Q -,�`�yp � : 3�. °" �`e�. a�� ,;'"�',�i' � . � �� " �{ M,, �,: ,. r � .:� r �*��y�. .�d P � ,_ �..: s�, � . _ . . � � _ . � �.�F�f,l.•.._ tir�i L �. � �tW , .. � �7 '.a. �.,�• o-� �n �� •� � h r. r°. 1 - .�,.�- �i � i � � , � '� . � . � s '�� ; w � � :� � �� - �� A� � I , �.� � nr . . ' � v � . � .' � . • `M. . � M1 . . qq.'. ` ° ' . a .. ' � . � i � ' . : . _�`s � :� �. � � � r �,. , �, �. "": ��J� ~.�� —`.^�- . . �.��•r 1 �� .�. � -�" �i.l�. � - _ i �� . � .� �k ,� Y ,a-• " �' �' � _�} �'�� .�' ;� ° A'��'� . - � �r� Y � 9 d t� � � • � � `�� e � �P�� ,.�� '�"� . �? ¢ � • ' ? s: +�$ ° q �' �4, A '� '�� ' , e ic'`�-,a � �`a:ast ._ t;_`i.s-�t. �'°.' r• " '� .ti " tl '� � ' �. � � �- � � � � � �� .� �M r�. ' � , � � M� `"t C"� �, +�° ,� �� `a � � � � . i 7 ti q �7.5 � �'�i��T �� -r • v x � , � _�, . 1 4 � <� ,�, � � � � � �i ■� ; ` '.� `} v� � � � � � � '� �-' � , �7 . � "� ,. '4 �1 ��g�.'A�'' t � ' � �` i � ..' � � `. �� •3 ,'o �. + �a„ �, y,�' 1^� � p� � t� V� a�'� = � � � � . K`�`r� � . � fi'+� �` . � P �� ' �� . � .' �i , �^�� * I � �' �'� '� ,.:4 � �� • � — !,_ � �• . . • -�$, �' r _ s.,—,�r.� - `a' - � 'z �_i ."y, � �� ' • � � ' __ t. �.�' 4:r� • " N. � � + . ', •. ��'° .r 1 �Tr � � �' . n-�. � .,► .' � � er, � � � � . $��. � } � �. � � S } t " � ` � , �. �� p i � � � �� _ : � r +� �- �' 'k �,�-. : t� . x e5 * . y, h � r �' �.., ' � 'e � T .e. �`0� F T + . �. �. S 1. .� .. .ti. �e r -_..•>� 1'� _.� }� � :.�� y � 1� � 'g �' �jI�� °� �� '�. � ., +i� � a '�Pi++�' , � �„ 1�y - i �#� r _ �4 � _ `•u 3' ''�!n� ,.�r-,�� c- ' � ��'r . ` : . ,�; � �; — � . — � ` , fi� ��, � � �. �!i ' R 4 � __ �� '� r.� . V . ��'1 ' 1 0�� ,� • A >. ?Yy �;� ., _ . �� ' �.�� . _ . • s ��r t ?� ' e e�. � i� 4 '� ' �a.' . .. '�. �` . irp� , �t � - � � " �"� . Y. � L �"f ' 6. . � � o � ^. ` ^ � . . � � �. � , �` _ i'q?': �1 J � i i �` '1 From: Mary Stephens Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:35 PM To: Community Development Subject: Public hearing today 6/2/20 re 725 W. River St, Monticello To the Monticello Planning commission: received the notice of the public hearing for today at 6:15 pm related to the 725 W. River St. property. As a nearby riverfront neighbor on River St., I felt it important to gather information related to the requested changes. In speaking with Angela earlier today, it is my understanding the variance for the change in the garage structure will not impact the setback from the street. That was a primary concern in that the top of the hill, where the property is closely located, there is significant limited visibility on the road from both directions, when people go by, often speeding and unchecked due to no stop sign or slowing notices on River St. It was made clear this is unaffected so as not to create any further safely issues. The other question was the side variance that could impact their neighbors on the west side, and also across the street. Angela fully explained the change and reviewed the survey document with me. If the immediate neighbors as I mentioned are in agreement with the requested variance, and there is no obstruction of river view for neighbors or safety issue from it, I support the request. Perhaps the only question was on the existing driveway staying put, while making a new one, which seemingly makes the drive wider that the new garage. Again, if their immediate neighbor is not opposed, I support the project for the Lichty owners. Thanks to Angela reviewing the document with me at length, and the commission's time and careful review of all submissions for maintaining the integrity of our West River Street waterfront neighborhood. Respectfully Submitted, Mary B. Stephens 813 W River Street Monticello, Mn 55362 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 2B. Public Hearin� — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for an approximatelv 432 square foot addition for a residential attached Accessorv Use Structure — Maior in an R-1 (Sin�le-Familv Residence) District. Applicant: Joseph Michael Osborn (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: Lot 4, Block 1 Balboul Estates Address: 340 Prairie Road, Monticello, MN The site is located on the south side of Prairie Road between Hedman Lane and Marvin Elwood Road. 2020-014 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Conditional Use Permit to allow an addition to a maj or accessory building that will exceed the footprint of the principal home. Deadline for Decision Land Use Designation Zoning Designation: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: June 30m, 2020 Places to Live R-1, Single Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The site is currently occupied by the existing home and attached garage. R-2 Single and Two Family Residence District R-1 Single Family Residence District R-1 Single Family Residence District R-1 Single Family Residence District Project Description: The applicant would like to construct a garage addition on the rear side of an existing attached garage at 340 Prairie Road, within the R-1 Single Family Residence District. The square footage of the garage (after completion) will be 984 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 square feet. In addition, the site has a 192 square foot shed in the rear yard. The garage and shed space will be 1,176 square feet in total. While this is within the maximum garage space allowance of the zoning ordinance, the total area will exceed the footprint of the principal home, which is 864 square feet. required if the tot detached accessory principal home. Ordinance Requirements: By code, a conditional use permit is l square footage of all attached and buildings exceed the footprint of the Building Plans. The applicant has submitted building plans that show the garage addition will have an overhead door and swing door on the backside to access the rear yard of the property. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that no additional pavement be added to the rear or side yards that connects the rear garage door to the driveway. Lot Requirements. By code, lots in the R-1 district are required to be 10,000 square feet and have a width of 70 feet. The subject lot meets these requirements, as such, this is a conforming lot of record. Setbacks. The table below shows that the existing and proposed garage will be compliant with the setback requirements for the R-1 District. If the conditional use permit is approved, the applicant will be required to provide a certificate of survey demonstrating that the proposed structure complies with setbacks. Setback Proposed Required Compliant Front � 40 feet (existing) 30 feet Yes Side (east) � 8'/z feet 6 feet Yes Side (west) N/A N/A N/A Rear � 75 '/z 30 feet Yes Drainage. The roof slope of the garage addition will slope to the east and west. This will change the way stormwater drainage occurs on this site. As a condition of approval, the applicant must adhere to any and all recommendations of the City Engineer to ensure best practices are maintained throughout construction. Conditional Use Permit. Section 2.4(D)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance states that approval of a Conditional Use Permit requires that the City find that conditions can be established to ensure that all of the following criteria will always be met: 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 (i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; Staff Response. The garage expansion will take place on the rear side of the existing garage. The expansion will not be visible from the street. The garage is not expected to impact property values in the area. (ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use; Staff Response. The garage expansion is not expected to impact any of these. (iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area; Staff Response. The area around the subject site is fully developed with single-family homes. Approval of the CUP is not expected to impede any future development. (iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided; Staff Response. The garage expansion will not impact any of these. (v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements; Staff Response. The garage expansion is expected to be used to store household and recreational equipment inside the structure. No impact on parking or loading is expected. (vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution; Staff Response. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that no business or commercial use be allowed in or around the garage. (vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled; 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 Staff Response. The garage expansion will take place over an existing patio area and lawn. No impact to natural features will result from this project. (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use. Staff Response. The proposed garage adheres to the standard in Section 5.3(D)(2) of the Ordinance pertaining to major accessory buildings. These standards are outline in the next section: Section 5.3(D)(2)(a)(i)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the size limitations for accessory building may not exceed the gross square footage of the principal building footprint, except by the issuance of a conditional use permit when the following conditions are found to exist: a. Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes. Staff Response. As noted earlier, this will be a condition of approval. b. The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lo� Staff Response. The garage expansion will take place on the rear of the property and add 432 square feet to the existing garage. The site is approximately a 1/3 of an acre, with the existing home located toward the front of the lot. The site will still have a comparatively large backyard after the completion of the expansion. c. The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property. Staff Response. The applicant has stated in their narrative that the garage expansion will match the existing structure in siding and roofing material. Further, the garage height will match the existing. As a result, the garage expansion is not expected to have an adverse effect on the architectural character of the area. c� The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building in architectural style and building materials. 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 Staff Response. As noted above, the applicant has agreed to comply with this requirement. This will also be a condition of approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2020-017 recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an attached garage that exceeds the footprint of the principal home, (a total of 1,176 square feet), as proposed in the application of May Sth, 2020, contingent on compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion denying Resolution PC-2020-017 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an attached garage that exceeds the footprint of the principal home, (a total of 1,176 square feet), based upon findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the Conditional Use Permit evaluation criteria of the Zoning Ordinance have been demonstrated. The proposed attached garage addition is an allowed use in the R-1 District and will be used to store vehicles and materials associated with single family residential uses. In addition, the design of the proposed garage will match the principal structure and surrounding homes and are not anticipated to negatively impact the character or health of the community. The zoning ordinance anticipates the need for residential properties to contain vehicles and personal property within accessory building space that exceeds the home's footprint. Such additional garage space requires a CUP to ensure that the property and character of the neighborhood are not negatively impacted. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit, with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2020-017 B. AerialImage C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plan E. Building Plans F. Site Images G. Letter of Public Comment Planning Commission Agenda - 06/02/2020 Z. Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT Z Joseph Michael Osborn Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building — Major 340 Prairie Road The applicant provide a revised certificate of survey demonstrating compliance with all required setbacks for the proposed addition. 2. The garage and existing shed shall be used solely for the parking of residential vehicles, or the storage of materials and equipment accessory to the principal residential use of the property, and no commercial or home-occupation use will be conducted in or around said accessory buildings. The applicant shall comply with all drainage and erosion control measures necessary to ensure protection of the area during construction. Further, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer during and after construction as needed. 4. The building materials for the garage addition shall match the existing home and attached garage in material type and color. No additional pavement be added to the rear or side yards that connects the rear garage door to the driveway. 6. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission. C� CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE — MAJOR IN AN R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT 340 PRAIRIE ROAD, LOT 4, BLOCK 1 BALBOUL ESTATES WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct an attached garage structure in the rear portion of the subject property for storage of private residential storage and lawn equipment; and WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage space would exceed the footprint of the principal use area on the property; and WHEREAS, garage space, when exceeding the floor area of the residential portion of the structure, requires a Conditional Use Permit, and WHEREAS, the site is zoned Single-Family Residence (R-1) and, which allows such use by Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Places to Live" for the area; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting the proposed structure and location of the structure on the subj ect property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2"d, 2020 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage will be in compliance with maximum square footage requirements, which require a maximum square footage for attached and detached accessory structures of 1,500 square feet. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-017 2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage addition is architecturally similar to the principal structure in roofline and fa�ade appearance. 3. The parcel is a lot which will accommodate the accessory space without crowding the subject property or neighboring parcels. 4. The building will be constructed so as to be consistent with the use and building massing of other single family structures common in the community and in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for an attached garage, subj ect to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below: 1. The applicant provide a revised certificate of survey demonstrating compliance with all required setbacks for the proposed addition. 2. The garage and existing shed shall be used solely for the parking of residential vehicles, or the storage of materials and equipment accessory to the principal residential use of the property, and no commercial or home-occupation use will be conducted in or around said accessory buildings. 3. The applicant shall comply with all drainage and erosion control measures necessary to ensure protection of the area during construction. Further, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer during and after construction as needed. 4. The building materials for the garage addition shall match the existing home and attached garage in material type and color. 5. No additional pavement be added to the rear or side yards that connects the rear garage door to the driveway. 6. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 2"d day of June, 2020 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Sam Murdoff, Chair 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-017 ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 0 � u c 0 0 � U T � � °� L U � ��'�,I I� � ��;� , � _=�'_,- � � � �� ' —� '° p�E� f� � f ��' ' �n. �,� m_--- � ' � � x�:rr � � � ---ir--`%Y �� .:�`-�-� . ��,�}` � . IP. ' t J �, _ . ^ �. �.��'�..� � � a � il � � , � ;,�� yt'L� i . J _ _ , � ��" � � ��j _ � �� i 4 �^.. t� . P, f c�',�� Ca�� c`�.�i • �'. N p �, � '� 4 f� r C� - N f�� t-�y ��, �� , � r,� � ^ �_ �, +�� • � �' �' � � �� Q . � � S# c�A,�l!� ,�'V ` '�'- �+ � . ' ��' L+�-' � CA �iy�i.,N G� �u7 �! ��'.� � ., . �� ,�� — � � _� � 1� � ' ' � � �`.� ��y 'r. flr � � - ' g ' "7�� RLL�'7; �+... ��, � � � �� aODi PR,� ` ,`� 4 � �t'1 i �itp +� � lf} �w N ��W r �. r` � � �' .� �:�' ;,M�`r��l � ,..� °t ^ , . H� � � �. • ;_��' � � '_ � " "�' o�.��:� �r.��' � ��-�v� > > r. ; �?` � i�'�. . � " �'" - ; �v �. � � � �; �: . � v �l, p� ..� �� . � � '� �, � , � . �� , � ; � � _ c� 7. '.f' d' � ,�� M 7 Q� . �� C7 . - r_ _• ..fG7 � Q��,p CA � � ' � � �'4 �� Qp i O . i irJ N .r �� U3 . �r��. ��r�� '��G°`i � a� _�� '`� � �C7 .+�� C'3 ,! ��. �t C;7�� CV G lf7 � � �'�' �' � c r� rv,��,� � o' 4'��rr ��rs ,� 7 � � �� c� sv r � s� �� rs � ,f � uy � � : � � �p � � � � � . . �_ �X ,� y�'�� 'tr•r ��r. �- � - _� � c � _�r .� � �,� ti�t,�y �, � r'�r„ � ,;�,.� � � � �.� .�,'— . �I� . a � . � � � � � ��r�r �, �'`�" � �,� , �,� �, � � �Q - - "' �; .� � , _ � � �� r �';u.` � ��?I!��y � . .'r.- .. 'G �� . �4° 7��• '� . .. . �.} � '�� ^ ' ..� � } ��"� � � � � h i , ' � ��4 r a�`� d u¢'s u�. �� .n+�'3 „rt �.��'� �'�{, � " l ; ... I � � ' � Y .. — ' • � � � �� } Ul�n' i:�. � � j!.' ! � �a rt'+F i :' �*rt�` ` � • � q �r � �'� � .:�' � ��.•i yi �i - '�a .. T . Y 6 � �e � � ' �2� � , h� �� . i �Ee'.:.. . .r .. . � � p � .� ��+ . .-a y� • . ."_ �: � � �" �„=� ;�„4 r �� . :�� a� aQonn�� nr�n�dw � � ^s�, '� � ;-� � ��, � -- i- I�� r `� _ � Y` �. ` � �'� ��, •` , ��,.. , ,�. ... a �,^ '�� i �� 0 1�; � � � � � � � � � � +�+j � � �„� � ❑ r .'�,�w" '� � , `� �{ ? �c ,f � _ �r"+� r - _ � . ` � ,, ::i �'`� '�+� t�#; . � �, w ` � �."�.��` �' � r� R' � ,� , j �'` � r. !� ��h � r' ;�+�'r;�,��`` .�- '� ' �� .. !,� '� � �p � / t �'r' �.P"' Q � � _` � � f '� � 1.� c j� � �� , ��: , ✓' ' . 1 � 4' r +� � � _ �+�- � � " r 1s � � � , x � , , ; 4' � � � � .� �; +f � , d • � R !�+ '^��r'� � 3,.� r �'� ,� _ �r "' W �. . �� _ ,�' ' '° q"�, :8�L�3°u� C ��' "� '�*.. ,. ,� '�`;� 'i ,��.� " � * � '�'� g .� ,� =-'�+�. '� � � . �r` � �l � "r, �► , / � �� ' � �u �! �� .;� . a � �,;�,. '� : ,� ' , � . - av � � �.� ! � � � a� - � _ � 4' cy � ' ry�,• `S �. ��,� y , y� ` `" , � -�� `'�' ' Y . •� �� :�` �� ''+� � � �� ,., � � a�` .i :�- o. ,� �,._ � : a �� ;�� ` ��' , ,.�'�w!�; '�': , � �'. � �i. ''� r�;,� f f� �� , i� � � �� `" �'.�� ' __._ �- � , � F ��rt! � � � � ��,� �� M1� .� z �r �� _ ' '�.' �1'' � `�'�.. .. j a,aj . �r� j . � � � � ,(� � +� �w?. . F ,.. : - � " �:�I t �� '�' � � �� f � �y� . .,i � � . : ' r. � � . � �] - � � ... fo-� � � °J: [ I' �� I !i �. � t � + ;�A �i��' '* `, � f � 7 '� _ � �1�fGHOLAS CfR'�� N �� Q � . L..., -.c � � �� c'7 * � � ��.rd�r . � . . � � � L. a , � � � . � 1 ,, ,,.'�" S , I Y � G C� � ,. � e�z c� � � � y� , r s� . � ' , � �, � ��,'�_ ' � ' ,j , � ;` �- .�,� �r, w � � y ,. �+ � D� a '7�' r �i � N rn ��p' ��►� 7 4��.�'^.�:� ,-�' � �� .�- _--� t i'�1� r� ;.� �` " �. 's - � , � H �� r �� , . • . , ■� � �,: - - � F � ' � �� i tt7 t:��. r � � _-,.. � � � �'�i � � �� r#r�- ^ +.k{.; '. �' May 01, 2020 Property Address: 340 Prairie Road Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Description: 18x24 Attached Garage Addition Roof and Siding to Match Existing Garage Height to Match Existing Usage: The proposed garage addition would be used for additional storage space for personal property. This will add space to allow us to park vehicles inside along with storage areas for four-wheelers, a boat, lawn mowers, and other miscellaneous items. Sincerely, Joe Osborn Homeowner _ -� — — � � � �. �� _ 'I � W � � � ' s '� � � . � � �"� � � � ' � � � i � . � � �` a� � �' ; ;w , �� - ,i� i '"�� -� � ,,, � � _ � —o � � ; � � "r I ,� � � "'� � � " � �u �� , � � � � f, # �r � � � � � ' � � �� -,� �,,; . � �, '� + - - �' .� _� `�� I � �_ �I ai=�� . � ` G � � ��. _9 � �__�-. . �� - � � �� _� -� �� u � �_ * r � ,� � _ _ �; e : _ � I� �' � �� .. " . �i I: �� -'S �i�' � y� '�„_ � � Y R - �� —. '� .. . '� � � � � �f � � .. + i; �� i�. � � � . � � � _ . � � W � � � • � � A �� ` � �� ` _ . . 7� -_. �4 ` � � � � i. � � " ` �� ry � '_ ..� ■ � '� � l � �� , ' x ,. �r„ - �' �� , � i2'x16' Gs,' � � � Shed � �, � a � � � — �' � . � � a I�. �'�' '� _ � � � * . - � { � - +� I ', . �� ii ; �:. � . 6 7. '� �` �rt - • � A� +�'�' � � � � ,, ' �" ,� _ _ _ _ ' � -� a � '� � � �� i '� r a � N k O .Q, i = N M V a ` � � y O y o a � g a � � " _ Q J � T �,�„ �,�„ m � G � 0 Q. Q. 3 ..v. aaocno _ 0 a a Q a1 R � � a61 O 0 a _ O .� V � 0 ��0-�L ��8/l L-�6 „8/5 b-,E l � N a �1 I IWV.I .° � ��S/l l-�6 , ° i � � a � 0 0 � � - � � ,;,; � ,�� , . �Y�. r . �.l �:.. � � i � � � � 'r'. , � � Yt ��' i { l � � f'� r ; i ,.�' ," i . i �"'` ^% I � J � i it h i 1 t i� , ��a N,'�r � � � i i ft� 7�6 + : ^ °" I �-I �� , /�y.ar; y' ^� a� r ,i �—� i� is 1 ' t , � � �j': ,� �/} P5, + . � � i � I--il"��SCw `� � 6 ,N �1 .� f i. ; � ' �a7 .. , .,; i �:. �"1 �I: I � �� '--,'� �;, d�°�t � �'t�l ; ir � . � ; � i ;, --+�_`T—"� � ` � � ;P � ;4' �. � I � �� ! ,/� t; � 1 � 1 :..oi ��.�'� � J ,L �:.� k � ��• i �� c . .t. . � � , iy Ot ' . ". f i . / � . ..i C . . ♦A , �:�'I. O C, .� ,. _r - ��-�� > � � ��°tc 1 ; � F-= - •�d��i@a�'$' ` �r - y � � ,i �- L�l r �w•i•��ad �� + .,, �b O'o*os r . \ I � � 0s•e•ioo0e°�,�q+�' .:. r� �� p f r � �� °�� ' o / 4��. X�� ! .�� , _ i v ,,, .�A . .� � i s , – � , i y.o � r�� 1: � r ``_ �`� , %�' ,s. s,� ,, ; � �. � ��_ �t �II ��- � : . r" > ' � �� ; „T�, �, i�w� � � ., � ,� �7 ; s �� , �� ty �' i �' _ � � �%. � ��;{ . . _ • . +� � �^, ' � . . �, N Y ��'.� . .�(,, � � .� � `P tSe�-l� . ' � #� ��. �F I ' � i �� - �� ,.,� . ' x ' ', �a-' ; � I o � � , � : �`'r �� . Qe� � f,,�F',, z � _ � . � � w ,�I �.,; � .. � � ��s . . �( :� x ,' I I I I I I fx� `;� O �.. i�� . z � s .I , � � , r i � `� � � — �, � : . 1 ,� ''� '� . r ��;'�;,�'1 . _ - ` ��.i � �. i „�-�` , -.. �tr I �' � . ;` a� � � � � ; � �. -i , : \ . ,� � � �'�ao �, ` 1 }� - �� . ..� ., ��'yyy�...��1_---��;` �...--- � r ' t �i� . �. 1 1 ' ` �� ' ' . , .".(`5 . �� . � �.�� ' . I Y� � � =ii- _'�Ill�'I�I � ,:.�. '� , - .:� ' � .I ...` . I i� ' ; : �� r� �, - - - ; ,,� � , �� , i `, � � �, ..:� � r ,�� ; �; - � � � � : �� - � � i �., � � � `', � �= - � �� -��.�-�:�- , �'�,� � � i __ - � '� _ ,� �-_ ' �-- _ ,�„ �� _ --= : � - �. `:,�_;� ; , _ , �,,; _ _ _ - — _ .,o,�„a �.., —=-. . �' `�� l - �' � �- � ". ' i � � , �� .� ;� �; �`�� I I � ♦ ♦ � � . � �._.�;-. _ � , __ .r.�.♦ �. ��:� � � �� ',��"��m�� ` y�, p' �: ?~7 • �� : 4 y'�'� � d� �.^� L� �� ,.. `1 t4Q a;',� i i b �• � 1 � �11�� 'iY�v i� � �;�� -�' K�p�A�.'�. 4�`I •' � „�'��,�4.��1��p - a i i �. _ A ;r �� ; �:� ��1 � � dy `��s• 7� �s' i �, a;� r x ��-{ . � `�; ■ � � % � � �� a r ■ � �' t4 -;�� 9 , i� ' , �.; Y� � � t.�/r � � i ;r �, , af,. � � � �r �; "'Ti �i' � � � �l � � . �.'. � V ��r _ � �;' �. � � � ^ � . �— ., � �7 - ;`` �k' I I �� t�, , �, � i .n y� I a �' I I � A. i�4��+'�r��y , �j� _ � ?, _ . � � � ��'il ' �� y .. � ��' +�'"y�,� , iil - _ a � �� _ ��.y ��5 � � ��4 u;� ; �`� �r � �. X , I �, t � � � '"' "'� � .� �I��IIII �� ' il l�� ',l�l a xek k - ti� �h, � ti ,i�lllll�; �� ..�,'"'c .�.° ��,''III�!�I�� ". � ��r,.� � 'i if2 4 � ; ,��t �. -. L �' �� 4f . . . `• -. �I��I��'�I� �.I I I I I ` � G�/" �� ; � � �� ''� �� .�� . � �d��l�ll ��IJ�; � � � ,�� ,r� ��I�� i ��[�- T" �'- � �� l ii� l�i I l �:i �i�jl��l�l�l� � �JII�� ` -� il 1 1 ��I ��II ��'I��I�' I +', �� , I�i1 � � 'i'I „"9 �� , — �� '��'Il�ll ��, � � � , � ',. ��,�;;'��ii��'�� , 1,��i�'il��,�ll��i��l� `� - - ''_ , ' r �� i ' �==�J:� ' : � �. l l'` --- �o�� - ,, �. _ _ _ �!. ��`� �� _ � ,� __ � :�,�� :. , - - � - �.��.� _ �:-� �,��s� �,� � �. � r �,� � _ �, , ��"��,�.. �� , ��• .�%�,,.�� _ � �I l ~� � � � � ��:� . ,� , - --� - �- �. ==� � �:�.� ��.. . __ �,�, ,� . ,, 1-� --r-� T . . ��i� '�• �' ''�' � � _� Ic -=� � - - � � �' -� - � t:!�� , .� ��_� . � I I II��.e,,. e - _— _._ . . . � �F �-- _ . . � � �i - • � : � Jacob Thunander From: Andy Thiele Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:56 PM To: Community Development Subject: Planning commission To whom it may concern I have no problem with Mr. Joe Osborn building an addition. Andy Thiele 350 Prairie Rd 3A. A. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision of one existin� parcel resultin� in two new buildable parcels. Applicant: Patricia Olson (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: Lots 6 and 7, Block F, Monticello (original plat) Address: 224 3rd Street East, Monticello, MN 2020 - O15 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: Subdivision of a parcel by creating a new lot line, resulting in two conforming single-family lots. July 1 st, 2020 Places to Live R-2, Single and Two-Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-2" single and two-family residential district is to provide for low to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and directly related complementary uses. N/A One Single Family Home Central Community District (Single Family Home) Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Project Description: The applicant's property consists of a parcel occupied by a single-family residence fronting on 3rd Street East. The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot to create two parcels with frontage on 3rd Street East. The existing home would remain as it exists (access to Palm Street), and the new parcel would gain its frontage and access from 3rd Street East. 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 ANALYSIS The Subdivision Ordinance, in Section 152.007 Subdivision A-2, provides for simple subdivision of lots that are currently platted and do not create more than two buildable lots. The Ordinance allows for such "simple subdivisions" to proceed without requiring a full plat or the normal public hearing requirements that larger subdivisions entail. Such subdivisions result in a"metes and bounds" description, essentially describing parts of the underlying platted lots. Occasionally, the County Recorder determines that the new descriptions are not recordable. While staff does not anticipate that likelihood in this case, if that were to occur, a plat would be required, and the applicants would need to reapply for a platted subdivision. The proposed subdivision property consists of two original plat lots that have been combined and contain one single family home. The underlying original plat would have shown two parcels facing 3rd Street East. Over time, those two parcels (Lots 6 and 7) were combined, and a single home was constructed on Lot 6 with access onto Palm Street. The new subdivision retains the existing home but removes what has been the large side yard to create a separate parcel that faces and accesses from 3ra Street East. According to ordinance definitions, both lots will have 3rd Street East as the "front" lot line, although the existing home will continue to gain its primary access from Palm Street. The common lot line will be an interior side lot line, making the required setback from that line of 10 feet. This new lot line will run through an existing play structure in the rear side of the yard. As a condition of approval, this play structure will need to be removed or moved to comply with the City's side yard setback of six feet. Further, the site has two existing cloths line poles that will now be abutting the side property line. These will also need to be moved or removed as a condition of approval, as they appear to create an encroachment over the new lot line. Moving both structures should consider their relocation outside of the required 6 foot drainage and utility easement area. Setbacks for the new lot will be 30 feet from 3rd Street East (north), 30 feet from the rear (south), and 10 feet each from east and west side lot lines. The proposed subdivision illustrates those setbacks requirements on the survey. The existing structure has a setback from 3rd Street East of 31.2 feet, and from Palm Street of 18.2 feet. While the front yard setback is conforming the corner side yard street setback does not meet the 20-foot corner street side 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 yard requirement. This is an existing legal non-conforming condition that does not affect the current application. Lot sizes in the R-2 District Original Plat are required to be at least 10,000 square feet of area and 66 feet of width. The lot with the existing home (Lot 6) will have 66.43 feet on 3rd Street East, and 10,963 square feet of area. The new lot (Lot 7) will have 66 feet on 3rd Street East and 10,963 square feet of area. Both lots meet the dimensional requirements of the R-2 District. It should be noted that the lot areas after subdivision will allow only the construction of a single-family home on the vacant parcel. Utility services in place and are available for the proposed lot. The creation of one new parcel will result in a requirement for the reapportionment of any assessments for the prior street reconstruction project. As a subdivision, at the time of development of the vacant parcel, payment of trunk area charges or park dedication may also be applicable as required by the current assessment policy or ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2020-018, recommending approval of the simple subdivision for 224 3rd Street East, subj ect to the conditions in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2020-018, based on findings to be cited at the Planning Commission meeting. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, based on findings that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and compliance with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2020-018 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Survey E. City Engineer's Comment Letter, dated May 20th, 2020 Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/2020 EXHIBIT Z Patricia Olson Simple Subdivision 224 3''d Street East � Lots 6 and 7, Block F, Monticello (original plat) 1. The play structure will need to be removed or moved to comply with the City's setback of six feet from the side and rear property lines, and 20 feet from the right-of- way along Palm Street. 2. The two existing cloths line poles that will be abutting the side property line shall be moved to comply with the City's setback of six feet from the side and rear property lines, and 20 feet from the right-of-way along Palm Street. Alternatively, the close line can be removed completely. 3. Provide a legal description of required drainage and utility easements for recording. 4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds subdivision, the applicant will need to re-apply and utilize a formal plat process. 5. Payment of any applicable trunk fee or other fees resulting from the subdivision including but not limited to sewer, water, and stormwater. 6. A required park dedication fee shall be paid by the applicant if it is determined that this fee has not yet been paid. 7. Reapportionment of applicable levied special assessments. 8. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer regarding easements, grading drainage, and utilities. 9. Recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission, as applicable. 4 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK F, MONTICELLO (ORIGINAL PLAT) WHEREAS, the applicant is the owner of two parcels consisting of Lots 6 and 7, Block F, Monticello (original plat); and WHEREAS, the subject property is currently combined as a single parcel; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to re-subdivide the subject parcel into two lots for the purpose of conveying one parcel, with an existing residential structure, to a third party; and WHEREAS, the subj ect property is zoned R-2, and the proposed lots will continue to meet the applicable zoning requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision qualifies for a simple subdivision process under the terms of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the matter at its regular meeting on June 2"d, 2020, and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision creates lots that will continue to meet the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed subdivision qualifies as a"simple subdivision" under the terms of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance for purposes of processing. 4. The proposed subdivision will not create undue burdens on public systems, including streets and utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the proposed subdivision is hereby recommended for approval, subj ect to the conditions found in Exhibit Z of the staff report on the matter, as follows: 1. The play structure will need to be removed or moved to comply with the City's setback of six feet from the side and rear property lines, and 20 feet from the right-of-way along Palm Street. 2. The two existing cloths line poles that will be abutting the side property line shall be moved to comply with the City's setback of six feet from the side and rear property lines, and 20 feet from the right-of-way along Palm Street. Alternatively, the close line can be removed completely. 3. Provide a legal description of required drainage and utility easements for recording. 4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds subdivision, the applicant will need to re-apply and utilize a formal plat process. 5. Payment of any applicable trunk fee or other fees resulting from the subdivision including but not limited to sewer, water, and stormwater. 6. A required park dedication fee shall be paid by the applicant if it is determined that this fee has not yet been paid. 7. Reapportionment of applicable levied special assessments. 8. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer regarding easements, grading drainage, and utilities. 9. Recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission, as applicable. ADOPTED this 2"d day of June, 2020, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION : ATTEST: Sam Murdoff, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 o �� ,r. I , P r ir , � '+ - � �" . r +�4 �� ' ' ' � ,..^'F Y' Y� . � - '�"`��'�� q�, � � _ L�lt.�,, �� .-r�� 4- . i .i� 1i � � .� . °�'r :� P +��. �� .� �', � � • - � � ' ¢ �^.�� .��iT Lf, � I r �,� � . '� �I : �,� ,�� t '' +.�+ ".�' .' y'�. , U � r � � � � ' � . , k � � � r , � � � s '��.• �.y� k�.P: �7 �� ,�.. �' �� ,'"` `f• `, � " •"� � .. -O �, � if' � I �W, R T^5.F F : ��♦ � �:;.:�� /' .� - . , � �:1 . � U •�,`^"� a ,i.� `• � � � - . . . � O ',a:r ` , � �5 � � q� , ,: �. � , .ti: } � �'��°'.r �„ - r�, r R �� p4 ' r;, l� ��e" � i.� � �4� �� ffi`. E1 ; ' � � ° y r �r� �� *" � r�� . �n_ � , �-�' rf, ' � "�. �• , ' ., , � . �� ' ' '� �� - : , �, � �. , , , r . �' � . '� ..; � ,�� ,. � . � � 4 � �' `�' a �� , : ,� ,�� '� � ': �' �L �,. y,� � �.� .. � t7 k ' � . M � ..�^ i � �� -,.I. • .n . "�7 1,.. 9 P.� . e`•. �'A, � H-. '� � f I ~ J . �. � � � . J d: � �[' . � :. I� � 1 r r` a j, f` . . � � �� r �'�� n��:' R � ^ ^�, ,. ,��[� �� .� �,� � �M�.,y � `. '_ �j'� 1`'�. �� ' � �'�� ... . ! `��r� � � �' ' �V r ' ;'; '`' °'' `� - � :, . , � � ` .��° ��,s�; $ ��1; � , '! � r '�� p„'. � -� � .�, �� . �' ;. '' £�'± � r . J�• �.� � � � �� ' � , � � � . s� t� �� ,� , � ]b,d , � , � � � ��:� � ° �:; � � N�::.� `�.�� " � . ,� � ,: -� � . � �, � 1 � r��, � ,� � � � �„�, O ' F � ;�t ' �f -. _ ,� � � �'''�'-- i_ O � � � � , � ,� ��l�n� c�r , O� `"'� ' � � ,<i � ,� + �, � � '�i.O� �' r�� ,� � Lf5 ; � �� - I � � �ti ^.. 1 r : �. �: x �� j`# . o '�� ; �� _ . ' �� '�� ,� . � ' � , � � � � � �� - �,. �r, � , r � � � �� '' �,rl � '� 4��.,, �. ; ��,. �� ;� ��J •� � � � ��:, r + � '' c ,� .,�t , /� ��- _ � , � ,,�n � a � .:�, : ,,�� ' ' ,� _ ' �� ,�#�� '� , � k`�+ t� � _ �� _ ''�.' � d' � V . � 'i l• �{ �1� � , � � �_+ , v � •; , , , � , 4 , � O �,,. I ,. �r� ra� if`, �'' � ' � � � � ;.� � !1�! �� 'e ,�.'+i4, '"' �.�,: � . �� 0 � � _ �� ' 4 " a � r � f,a�' .�+' � , 'i, ,I� '��` � 0 a � '` I' � .w � � , �� t � �'F� � ��' l � � .� � � � , �.� k v � :i , � �ii � . (/) � i. "�4 di �bA � !� � � �. -: • ` �. � ' , • . M .r . � � � '�"...� " r �♦ � �� . � � . �`L`e`°�ii. , ' } � � `� '�, �'' ; °` ` ... _ UO '� }� "� � R7`� •hl '.�. -Ts S.� !I. rY .� .G � �. �G �� 4T � � � � rM � m . cry � - f ��... � � M . � � ":e7 ' I. �. � � � i ,1 O � , d � � `� �. ,, ,, � `� f `� �: G� �.. � � � '_ � p �m ' , ��- ' a�� - � . .! . �� qr} . O � ,�.��ym V � �, � � � , , .. . � ., : ++ � �,�, � . �_ � � � : � P -. , , . , _ � , , J� " �k, „ � w V � � � � J � - � F�Ar� i` � � a°�o ,� _ ,.�� . �� ` F � �--, ca •!'`�'��a�" �, �'' � �'� . _ „ � � :� � �� . . '�� " jy�' 'k,� , a � �'��d� � - �� 3�. ' y� �: �' � Jacob Thunander From: Patricia Olson Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:18 AM To: Jacob Thunander Subject: Re: Land Use Application Good morning Jacob, It's quite simple, not sure why I had to do all this. I currently have a family that rents the house, have been there since 2001. At the 224 E. 3rd St. location They want to purchase the house. But as it stands, it is tied into 2 lots. I simply wanted to know where the lot line is for just the house, since they do not want to buy both lots. And I don't want to sell the lot in between the house located at 224 E. 3rd St and 212 E. 3rd St. I want this recorded as 3 separate lots. Actually just know where the lot ends for 224, for no other reason but to sell them the house and lot that it sits on. If you have any more questions, you can contact me by email or by phone Thank you for reaching out and helping me with this process. Patricia Olson -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Thunander <Jacob.Thunander@ci.monticello.mn.us> To: Cc: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us> Sent: Mon, May 4, 2020 12:19 pm Subject: Land Use Application Patricia, Thank you very much for submitting a Land Use Application for 224 E 3�d Street, Monticello. Would you be able to write a short narrative explaining your proposed lot split information and anything relevant that would help the City as they review the application? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jacob Thunander Community and Economic Development Coordinator City of Monticello http://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/ 763-271-3206 Email correspondence to and from the City of �Monticello government office is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. � 3 �_ �� j �;j�i ��E#��j Isi�� as��$a$3��t � � � ose.pe�eo o I lil �r ' � � ��-e .-,� �-- �' _:'� � `�� . _ �� 3 � � �; � �% � m ` �3p - �/�' � *e � �8 3.1i e '� .� � , � i �.\ C: ;L :' i . ..i J �.. ,� „ � C: m ,..+::;'y i L yi i/ F' � `� �/i .X i i a �� { �, � e� 5 y S �# ��i � ��° �:�� ¢s ��i �� ' �� $ s , � ��_' {� 0 { gg p �� ¢i� :p3i�g �i1$a � � �1�4Ep j ?'�ax 6 i� � � �a;' H6$ �8E �� a�s�� '� ' � i�� $g 1�? s�F ta�3j� � Fp�1! � �� #i€ � ��'�f � af3 �!3 ��i ��a� � i � 's# i �� E Z o� F � � zR� J„ 8 a� .� CITY OF � �%11t1C� a May 20, 2020 Re: Olson Lot Split City Project # 2020-015 OFFICE:763-295-2711 FAX:763-295-4404 505 Walnut Street� Suite 1 � Monticello, MN 55362 The Engineering Department has reviewed the survey dated 04/16/2020 as prepared Webb Surveying and offers the following comments: General Comments 1. Please add drainage and utility easements to survey and provide legal descriptions for the easements. The subdivision ordinance requires "(C) Width and location. An easement for drainage and utilities at least six feet wide shall be provided along each side line of each lot and an easement of 12 feet wide shall be provided along the front and rear line of each lot." 2. A proposed grading and drainage plan will be required for lot 7 at the time of development. The City is not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City's standards. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please contact the Engineering Department with any questions. Sincerely, Ryan Melhouse Engineering Technician www.ci.monticello.mn.us Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/20 3A. Communitv Development Director's Report COVID-19 City of Monticello Information Resource: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/covidl9 Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration to approve a request for a Conditional Use Permit for height for a 45' industrial building silo addition as part of a building expansion. Applicant: Copperhead Industries, LLC (Tim Burmis) Council approved the conditional use permit as part of the consent agenda on May 26th, 2020. • Consideration to approve a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure in an A-O (Agriculture/Open Space) District to accommodate an open, covered patio over existing outdoor entertainment space. Applicant: Monticello Country Club Inc. Council approved the conditional use permit as part of the consent agenda on May 26th, 2020. Ordinance Flexibility Related to COVID 19 Acting under its emergency declaration, Resolution 2020-038, the City Council has authorized flexibility from a number of zoning ordinance standards in an effort to support businesses as they respond to the pandemic. The City Council relaxed standards for temporary sign permitting for all commercial businesses earlier in the year, and in May, relaxed requirements related to outdoor dining areas for restaurants. Planning Commission can read more about these accommodations at: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3918715C4C%7D/uploads/2I Business_Waiver.pdf Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan The first chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Transportation chapters, are starting to take shape. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met in early May to review a Land Use Strategies document which provides a policy framework for the two chapters. The TAC provided valuable feedback, which was supplemented by additional staff feedback on the draft land use map. Draft chapter information and a community survey are expected from the Lakota Group in late May. These resources will be posted to the City's website. A special workshop session for the Community Advisory Committee and a number of other community-wide stakeholders is scheduled to occur the last week of May and first week of June. The feedback of the CAC and other stakeholders will support the continued integration of the Vision and values statements into the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/20 CMRP Updates The Planning Commission is encouraged to participate in the first round of engagement for Framework 2030, the regional planning proj ect initiated by the CMRP. Contribute your ideas here (special survey for elected/appointed officials). Housing Study The EDA directed the preparation of an updated community housing study and authorized the release of a request for qualifications and proposal. In 2017, the Monticello EDA adopted a Housing Study developed by WSB & Associates. The EDA's goal from the new study is to gain an updated and clearer understanding of housing demand in various market segments and geographic areas of the community, layering analysis with data. The information yielded from the Housing Study will be important to the City as it evaluates housing proposals and affordable housing strategies. It will be incorporated into the policies being developed for the Comprehensive Plan and help inform the decisions of the Planning Commission, EDA, and City Council on an array of housing-related land use and economic development initiatives. The RFQ proposers were asked to submit information on their qualifications, understanding of the proj ect and relevant experience and detailed information on their project approach, timeline, and expected project cost. Five proposals were received. The EDA met on May 27th to select a firm with whom to refine a scope of work and prepare a contract. Staff will provide an updated on the selection process during the regular meeting. The study is anticipated to be complete by the end of August, 2020. Development Project Updates Deephaven: The developer has closed on and owns the property. The developer continues to work on addressing final plan comments. In recent communication, the developer has indicated their intent to commence grading in 2020 for the first addition of the project. • UMC: In the most recent communication with UMC, it is staff's understanding that UMC hopes to begin construction in early summer. UMC continues to work through final site plan adjustments and conditions of their land use approval. The City is also waiting for final signatures on the PUD agreement. Chamber of Commerce Presentation Community and Economic Development presented to the Monticello Chamber of Commerce on May 19th. The department provided an overview of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, as well as the CMRP Framework 2030 planning effort. Staff encouraged Chamber members to get engaged in providing feedback for both proj ects. In addition, staff was able to provide an overview of the Workforce Pathways program progress - 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/02/20 more details below. Workforce Pathways Project Representatives from the City, School District, Chamber of Commerce, Wright County Economic Development Partnership, and Minnesota Workforce Center are part of the Workforce Pathways Coalition. The goals of the Workforce Pathways project are to create connections between schools and employers to create the workforce of tomorrow, focusing on automation, productivity strategies, effective leadership, team development, and strategic planning. Recently, Monticello High School was awarded a Youth Skills Training Grant through the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The goal is to promote career paths for students in the areas of manufacturing health care, information technology, and automotive. The grant will provide paid Youth Internship program at Monticello High School, starting September 2020 and develop partnerships between educators and businesses in our community to create 10 youth partnerships at local businesses. The School District and City will be working together to encourage and connect business participation. 3