Planning Commission Minutes 06-02-2020MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020 - 6:15 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
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 Monticello Planning Commission
to order at 6:15 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes — May 5th, 2020
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES — MAY 5TH, 2020. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for variance to the required 10'
side vard setback in the Mississinui Wild Scenic Recreational River District
in the R-1 (Single -Family Residence) District.
Applicant: Sandra K Lichty
Steve Grittman introduced the item by stating the proposal was to remove the
existing attached single stall garage and breezeway and replace it with a new two
stall garage. The proposal would place the garage at a six foot side yard setback
and the required side yard setback is ten feet because the property is located in the
Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River District (MWSRR). Grittman
noted that typically, the side yard setback for single family residential districts is
six feet.
Grittman reviewed the findings for granting a variance and noted support of the
proposal. He recognized that a two stall garage was a reasonable use of property
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 1 110
and common in residential districts. The proposal met all other intents of the
zoning ordinance.
Grittman also stated that the applicant planned to complete an addition in the rear
of the property which would expand the house and create a new deck area. It was
noted that the improvements would meet all shoreline and MWSRR setbacks to
the river and bluff line.
Grittman added that because the property is in the MWSRR, it is required to
notify the DNR of any land use applications. They commented that there were no
issues with the side yard setback and no impacts to the river. They reminded the
applicant that they need to continue to meet the impervious surface coverage
requirement of no greater than 25 percent.
Staff recommended approval of the variance application, with conditions as noted
in Exhibit Z.
Sam Murdoff asked if the existing driveway was staying in place. Grittman
confirmed that the current driveway along the property line was intended to stay.
The applicant would expand the driveway to access the new garage, where the
current breezeway sits.
Andrew Tapper asked if the applicant would move the curb cut. Grittman
explained that the curb cut would be extended farther to the east. Staff
recommended as a part of Exhibit Z that the applicant comply with the 3 foot side
yard setback for (west) curb cut and shift the existing curb cut to the east.
Grittman noted that some curb repair would be necessary as a result of this
condition.
Murdoff asked what the proposed width of the driveway. Grittman responded that
it is proposed to be approximately 21 to 22 feet in width, with the current code
allowing up to 30 feet.
Tapper asked where the ten foot side yard setback originated from. Grittman
responded that the DNR has a model ordinance for the MWSRR District and that
it was recommended at ten feet. Grittman added that the City adopted the six foot
setback standard for normal residential lots due to the nature of the size of the
lots. He also noted that all lots within the Original Plat of Monticello measure 66
feet in width. Angela Schumann added that the DNR is mostly concerned with the
river side setback rather than the side yard setback. It is the City's standard for a
ten foot side yard setback.
Murdoff asked what the City's standard for driveway width from the curb cut to
the property line. Grittman responded that the previous ordinance allowed
driveway width at the property line to be 24 feet and can expand at the property
line to match the width of the garage. Murdoff also asked generally what the
length was from the curb to the property line. Grittman responded that it was
typically 14 to 20 feet depending on the street. Tapper asked for confirmation if
the proposed curb cut was within code standards. Grittman confirmed and stated
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 2 110
the curb cut was 22 feet. Grittman explained that the recent code amendment to
driveway widths allows up to 30 feet. Tapper asked what the side yard setback of
the driveway to the property line was. Grittman responded that it is three foot per
the zoning code.
Sandra Lichty, the applicant, explained the background of the proposed project.
Lichty mentioned concern with reducing the current curb cut. She requested that
the driveway reasonably be able to accommodate two parked vehicles side by side
and that they could back around each other easily. Lichty noted that the driveway
was new as of last year (August or September, 2019). She also expressed the
desire to keep the current curb cut and driveway as it would be helpful during the
winter parking restrictions.
Lichty also discussed the remodel work for the rear addition. The addition would
include a master bedroom and living room space and bring the laundry and a
powder room to the main floor. The same size deck as existing would then be
added to the new addition.
Murdoff asked for confirmation from Lichty to keep the existing driveway as it is.
Lichty confirmed and noted that she talked with her neighbor and they had no
concerns with it staying.
Murdoff asked if the existing was concrete or asphalt. Lichty responded that it
was concrete.
John Alstad pointed out that the DNR is requesting an impervious surface
calculation. Lichty expressed that it was the intent to not change the pervious
surface proposed underneath the deck nor change any draining patterns. Alstad
also noted that the DNR recommended water retention features. Lichty responded
that she assumed the right percentage of surface would exist to allow water to
drain properly. She also mentioned that during her City Staff review meeting,
there were no concerns mentioned by staff.
Murdoff asked if the foundation would be concrete or raised. Lichty stated that it
would be raised. She said that appropriate footings for the additions would be
installed and no basement structure was intended for underneath the addition.
Schumann noted that the public hearing notices did include the option to
participate in the meeting via Go To Meeting (a teleconference platform). No
citizens had participated on the teleconference option.
Schumann noted for the record that written comment via email had been received
from the property owner located at 813 River Street West. They had concern with
the site line visibility for the front yard and whether the addition would encroach
in the front yard setback. Schumann and the property owner were able to talk
about the side yard setback and that the proposal moved the garage off of the
property line. The property owner mentioned concerns with visibility especially to
river. They were supportive of the request for variance pending the neighbor to
the west of the subject properties concerns. Schumann noted that staff received a
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 3 110
call from the property owner to the west of the subject parcel, but that no written
comment was submitted. He noted to staff that the code was in place for a reason,
but did not have objections to the proposal.
Hearing no further comments, Sam Murdoff closed the public hearing.
Tapper asked if a permit was required for the current driveway constructed last
year. Grittman confirmed it was a permitted process and noted that the property
owner installed a concrete driveway over the existing gravel driveway. The
property owners wouldn't have encroached any more or less than existing. Tapper
asked if a permit was issued for the driveway. Grittman could not confirm, but
noted staff including the department that approves driveway permitting were
aware of it.
Alison Zimpfer supported the proposal.
Tapper stated that if the City permitted them to pave a driveway along the
property line a year ago, asking the property owner to remove three feet of it was
onerous. He recommended removing that condition in Exhibit Z.
Alstad mentioned concerns with water retention features. Grittman explained that
typically the DNR would recommend a swale or rain garden facility to help slow
or capture water before it runs into the river. Staff did not include that condition
as a part of the report and encouraged the applicant pursue options. Grittman
indicated that staff could assist with following up on options.
Paul Konsor indicated that the project made sense and the application seemed like
a formality for public process. He noted that the property was constructed prior to
the MWSRR regulations.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED 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 WITH
THE REMOVAL OF CONDITION RELATED TO CURB CUT AND THREE
FOOT SETBACK FOR DRIVEWAY. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Sandra K Lichty
Variance to Side Yard Setback in MWSRR Overlay District
725 West River Street
1. 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.)
3. Contractor to maintain current drainage patterns.
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 4 110
4. Engineering Department will require a driveway permit prior to expansion of driveway.
5. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission.
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 — Maior in an R-1 (Single -Family Residence)
District.
Applicant: Joseph Michael Osborn
Steve Grittman introduced the public hearing and noted that the conditional use
permit request was for an expansion of an attached garage on a single family
home. The expansion would occur on the south/southeast portion in the rear of the
home. The CUP application was required because of the proposed garage being
larger than the footprint of the residential portion of the home. Grittman explained
that the proposed garage was still within code allowance.
Grittman also provided the criteria for approving CUPs. He noted that staff
believes sit doesn't threaten the surrounding properties, does not overcrowd the
site, architecturally fits with property, and is consistent with allowances and
requirements for CUPs and accessory building standards.
Grittman stated that the setbacks for the property exceeded the requirements set
for single family residential districts.
Grittman reviewed the conditions in Exhibit Z and recommended approval of the
application.
Sam Murdoff asked about the Exhibit Z comment regarding having a revised
certificate of survey. Grittman stated that the survey is common for construction
projects, in particular when there could be potential issues for setback. Applicants
during the land use application phase are not required to have a survey as the
survey is at their own expense and subject to the application approval. The revised
survey would be reviewed during the building permit phase to verify the project is
within setback requirements.
Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Joe Osborn, the applicant, introduced himself and exclaimed that the purpose was
to declutter the front and back yards and for the storage of boating, ATV, and
vehicle storage.
Murdoff asked the applicant if he was able to review the comments in Exhibit Z
and if he had any concerns with complying. Osborn stated he did review the
comments and did not have any concerns.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 5 110
PAUL KONSOR MOVED 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, AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION OF MAY
5TH, 2020, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS
SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Joseph Michael Osborn
Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building — Major
340 Prairie Road
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.
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
Steve Grittman introduced the item and noted that the request was for a
subdivision located at the corner of Yd Street East and Palm Street. The parcel
consists of two legally described Original Plat lots combined.
The applicant was seeking to split the lot and revert it back to the two standard
Original Plat lines. The proposed subdivision contains a home on the east parcel,
which is currently rental property. The proposed parcel to the west is vacant and
could be developed.
Grittman exclaimed that the lots meet the expectation of the Original Plat and
standards for the R-2 zoning. The house meets the proposed setback requirement
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 6 1 10
for the interior lot line. The exterior setback is not changing because of the
existing lot lines along Yd Street East and Palm Street.
Grittman added that the proposed subdivision would create setback
encroachments for a play structure and two clothes line polls. It is proposed to
relocate these structures six feet from the property lines, which is the standard
setback for accessory buildings. The clothes lines were also noted as being
located in the lot line easement area, which is why they would need to be removed
or relocated six feet away from the property line. Grittman added that the lot line
easement areas should be added to the survey.
Staff recommended approval of the application, with conditions identified in
Exhibit Z.
Sam Murdoff asked if staff knew when the lots were originally combined.
Grittman was unsure of the timing.
Andrew Tapper asked for clarification if when a lot is split, it creates a new fee
structure with the City. Grittman confirmed and stated that the subdivision creates
the necessity to apply fees since the applicant could convey the lot at any time
once they are subdivided.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the park dedication requirement in Exhibit
Z. Grittman said that when a subdivision is created, a fee for park dedication is
incurred. Grittman added that the comment was discussed at a staff level and may
not be applicable because the subject parcel is located in the Original Plat. It was
noted that more research would need to be completed.
Grittman also pointed out Item 4 on Exhibit Z. He noted that it was highly
unlikely that the County would not accept the new legal descriptions as they were
simple and reverting back to the Original Plat descriptions. Grittman said that the
Exhibit Z comment was only a cautionary note, in case platting would be required
by the County.
Angela Schumann also noted that the subdivision ordinance does not require a
public hearing for simple subdivisions.
Sam Murdoff asked why the fees wouldn't be paid before the subdivision split
would occur. Grittman exclaimed that once the streets were reconstructed, an
assessment was laid on this single parcel. He noted that the assessment could not
be reapportioned until after the subdivision. Schumann also added that the county
has one PID per parcel and assessments are levied by PID. Murdoff asked if the
assessments could be paid off prior to splitting the lots. Grittman confirmed the
applicant could do so, but the City could not require it.
The Planning Commission invited the applicant to comment if she would like to.
The applicant noted that staff covered the proposal in their presentation.
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 7 1 10
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-018,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FOR 224
3" STREET EAST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Patricia Olson
Simple Subdivision
224 3rd Street East I 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.
B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
provided in the agenda packet.
Schumann provided additional details regarding the Monti 2040 Comprehensive
Plan update. She invited the Planning Commission, if interested, to attend a web
session workshop on June 3, 2020 from 1 — 3 p.m. to discuss the draft land use
strategies plan and map with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and
stakeholders. Schumann added that all of the materials were posted on the City's
website including last week's presentation of a similar workshop meeting that was
held the week previously. She also encouraged participation in an online
workshop (survey) that asks the community including city officials for their
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 8110
comments on the draft land use map and strategies. The online workshop (survey)
is taking the place of an in-person workshop.
Schumann also explained that the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning
Partnership also has a survey for Framework 2030 available and encouraged the
commission to participate. Schumann pointed out the importance of participating
in these surveys and providing comments.
Schumann also discussed the EDA's recent request for qualifications and bids for
an updated Housing Study. It was noted that the EDA would like the Planning
Commission's actively involved with the process and the study. Schumann also
stated that staff asked for the study to tie between the data and the local
community. Stakeholder interviews would occur during this process.
In the Director's Report, it notes project updates. Schumann added Haven Ridge
by explaining this was a proposed large single-family and multi -family residential
development in the area south of the City in the annexation area. It is staff's
understanding that the developer plans to continue with its first phase of
development, which includes 27 units, but with the current situation, things are
slower. The approved preliminary plat is valid for ten years, whereas the final plat
is valid for filing for 365 days (December, 2020).
Sam Murdoff asked for an update regarding Spirit Hills South. The developer
asked for a one year extension for filing their final plat for a 49 unit single family
home development. It was also noted that Firm Ground's proposal for a multi-
family apartment complex has been approved for extension of filing for final plat
and final stage PUD.
Paul Konsor asked if the Buchholz project was starting this year yet. Schumann
stated that their building permit for the construction of the first apartment
complex of three has been received. It is currently being reviewed by the Building
Department. The developer intends to have their final plat filed by the end of
June.
4. Added Items
N/A
5. Adjournment
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22 P.M. ALISON
ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 9 110
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: July 7th, 2020
Attest:
Angela Schumann,(Cin#hunity Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — June 2nd, 2020 Page 10 110