Loading...
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