Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-01-2020MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 1st, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, and Andrew Tapper Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman (NAC) 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Andrew Tapper asked for revisions related to word changes to speculation rather than specification. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — NOVEMBER 2ND92020. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Sam Murdoff asked for an update regarding the plat of Spirit Hills South. E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. J01 N ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Map Amendment (Rezoning) from A-O (Agricultural Open Space) to R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary & Final Plat for Featherstone 5th Addition, a 26 Lot Single Family Development Applicant: Novak -Fleck Inc. (Horst Graser) Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use applications that the applicant was seeking to accommodate a 26-lot single family development. This proposed project was part of an original Featherstone plat and Planned Unit Development that began in the early 2000's and has proceeded through a series of Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 1 114 final plat stages over the years. The original PUD was part of a mixed -use design for the 220-acre Featherstone parcels with single-family, mixed residential density, commercial, and industrial uses. The applicant is asking to retain the original approvals from the PUD including utilizing the same code for building size and building materials that existed. Grittman explained that the applicant is seeking to complete the 5th Addition similar to what was envisioned from the original plat. Grittman provided an aerial and the proposed plat layout. He noted that the plat is consistent with the R-1 standards, the originally approved preliminary plat, and the anticipated comprehensive plan. Staff recommended approval of the applications with conditions as noted in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked for clarification on the Exhibit Z conditions noting the construction of 89th Street NE. Grittman noted that the intent was to bring 89th Street NE including utilities to the edge of Featherstone 5th Addition. Murdoff asked if there were plans to fill in the agricultural land between State Highway 25 and Featherstone 5th Addition. Grittman explained that those areas were originally included in the preliminary plat from many years ago. It will be up to the applicants to continue phasing throughout the project to complete the development as envisioned. Grittman noted that it would not be surprising to see some modifications as development continues west from the original plat to any proposed development. John Alstad asked for clarification on "Street G". Grittman showed the site plan and noted that staff have asked the applicant to apply the standard naming to the street. Murdoff asked if a stormwater pond was proposed for the northeast corner of the proposed development and the 2"d Addition. Grittman confirmed, noting that the pond is already constructed and serves both additions. These ponds are listed in the drainage and utility easements. Grittman also added that a pond also exists on Block 3 of the proposed plat. Murdoff asked if the ponds were more than sufficient for what is being proposed. Grittman noted that it has been engineered to accommodate this development. Charlotte Gabler noted concerns with increased traffic on Ebersole Avenue with the recently approved Edmonson Ridge and adding an additional 27 lots in Featherstone 5th Addition. Grittman noted that the proposed lots would have access from 89th Street NE to Edmonson Avenue or Ebersole Avenue to 85th Street NE or 87th Street NE to Edmonson Avenue. Gabler asked if staff are looking at stop sign usage and other measures as traffic increases especially as it relates to the existing neighborhoods. Grittman confirmed that the City keeps track of the number of lots and the amount of proposed traffic generation that would use these external roadways. Grittman noted that the standard is typically 50 lots per access point. He explained that even with the Edmonson Ridge project, the area is below this threshold. Gabler also asked if it were known where the park was planned or if park dedication would be received. Grittman responded Planning Commission Minutes — December I st, 2020 Page 2 114 that the park design runs throughout the project. Gabler noted hesitation with having parks on corners or bordered by roadways. Grittman noted that the PARCs is reviewing the design. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Horst Graser, the developer, noted the history of the original approved PUD and the request for Featherstone 5t' Addition. He noted that all the lots exceed the minimum density required and noted that most of the lots are between 13,000 to 14,000 square feet. The total number of lots that have been platted including the proposed addition is 161 lots. Graser noted increased demand for rambler lots and commented that the large lots would accommodate such design. He also indicated interest in look -out, walk -out, and split entry lots rather than flat lots. The developer ensured that most were not flat lots and that they raised the grade in some areas to accommodate the market request. The developer understood the need to dedicate additional land for park dedication. He noted that they were willing to work with the City to meet the requested dedication and did not see any issues with additional dedication requirements. Graser stated that they were proposing to grade the 5th Addition contemporaneously with the 6th Addition due to grade difference between the two areas. The lots in 6th Addition (a future proposed project of 23 lots) would be consistent with the original PUD and preliminary plat approval. Graser noted that they are building up to 25 homes a year to a year and a half. He envisioned building Featherstone 6th Addition in 2021 and noted that it would be the last addition for traditional single family. Graser indicated beyond that, there is approximately 35 acres dedicated for multi- family. He suggested that the developer would come back for an amendment to PUD as the product originally envisioned is no longer marketable or feasible. Graser noted if it is a multi -family development such as townhomes, it would be a coordinated effort between the builder, the product, and the platting. Graser estimated that this request could be reviewed in three to four years depending on market conditions. Graser also mentioned conversation with staff regarding potentially providing sewer to the proposed industrial development areas. This project along 89th Street NE has deep sewer at approximately 20 to 22 feet and will serve the proposed industrial and commercial area. Graser noted that they are at a point where water and sewer could be extended to serve the industrial area. Murdoff asked for clarification where industrial and commercial land would be proposed. Graser explained that Featherstone 6th Addition would abut industrial. The commercial and industrial land would run along State Highway 25. Murdoff clarified that after the 6th Addition and the multi -family development, the remaining space would be utilized for industrial and commercial. Graser confirmed, adding that they would dedicate the rest of the parkland that has been designated in the PUD as one large ten -acre piece (adjacent to 85th Street NE). He asked that some area be left for design purposes. Graser noted a problem that occurred with this development that was paramount in the 4th Addition was that there was 1,100 feet of park frontage. Consequently, that required the developer to have all of the utilities built in this area, where no residential lots existed, which was very costly, and it will be expensive to the City when reconstruction occurs. The park, if approved as planned, has frontage on three sides, which is Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 3 114 extremely costly and asked to have as much flexibility with the road that will intersect with 85th Street NE. Graser added that the builders in the development are predominately Novak -Fleck and Progressive Builders. They did not see a change to that in the foreseeable future and no homeowner's association exists in the proposed phase or the existing phases. Andrew Tapper asked if there was a reason the developer was not seeking Featherstone 6th Addition with this approval. Graser responded that it was cost prohibitive to build both phases at the same time. He noted that it was typical for developers to start smaller with fewer lots and build out. Tapper also asked if they have agreements with the builders for the proposed addition. Graser confirmed. Murdoff asked for clarification on timing of the park dedication. Graser noted that once a decision has been made for the multi -family development and it is known where the intersection would be made for 85th Street NE, Graser would be willing to dedicate the balance of the parkland to the City. He explained that they were willing to work with staff to meet the City's request for park dedication. Gabler asked if staff could review Featherstone 4th Addition's park and reconfigure the park due to the expansive street frontage. Schumann noted that the amount of park dedication is exactly what is required for this residential plat. Schumann was cautious in adjusting the acreage as it would then require a cash -in -lieu payment. Schumann noted that she understood that Mr. Graser was looking for future flexibility for how the multi -family would be arranged especially with how the street would be constructed and the location of parkland. She further pointed out that the City would seek park dedication to the east portion of the outlot, with flexibility left on the west for future multi -family considerations. Tapper asked for clarification on the linear park system in Featherstone. Schumann noted that two parcels have been deeded in prior residential platting to meet park dedication and that the balance of the requirement for park dedication would be met by the outlot abutting 85th Street NE. The recommendation to the PARCs board will be an amount at least commensurate with the required dedication of eleven percent of land, which is approximately two acres, and would be looked to be dedicated adjacent to the existing park land. She noted that the park provides a nice buffer to an interior street that runs the length of the development and 85th Street NE. Murdoff asked for clarification on the style of home that would be placed near this flexibility. Graser noted it was too early to determine and depends on the market. He added that they are committed to completing the development as initially envisioned. Eric Hagen, 4255 89th Street NE, explained the uniqueness of Featherstone such that it provides step-up housing options and has large lots and spacing. He proposed that Lots 11 and 12, Featherstone 5th Addition, be combined and that the future structure face south towards 89th Street NE. Hagen explained that it aligns the lot size with the average lot size of proposed 5th Addition, the outer edge of "G Street", and the north side of 89th Street NE, including Featherstone 1 st and 2nd Addition. He also believed that combining these two lots would provide an aesthetically congruent neighborhood. All the other lots along the north side of Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 4 1 14 891h Street NE face that street, except for one lot proposed in the future Featherstone 6th Addition. He believed that combining the lots would provide an equitable and improved dwelling view, especially as related to the feeling of having wide open space. He felt that it would align with the aesthetics of the northern half of 89th Street NE and affords the future occupants a similar experience of space between dwellings when viewing the landscaping from their windows of the proposed rambler lookout in Lot 12. Other lots on the interior of 5th Addition share drainage easements that will create the same experience of space between dwellings despite their lot size. He thought that leaving the design as is, leaves a view into your neighbor's house feel from Lot 12, unlike any other property in the addition. The revision will also negate the issue of headlights from traffic turning onto "G Street" shining into the front of Lot 12. Traffic heading east on 891h Street NE turning north onto "G Street" will shine headlights through the front of the home on Lot 12. The revision proposed, especially with garage placement on the west side of the lot, would completely resolve that issue. Murdoff asked if the main concern was that he didn't want people looking into their house. Hagen confirmed that he preferred to not be the single development in the neighborhood that has house in the side yard. Murdoff asked if the modification would then create the same problem for the proposed Lot 10 of Featherstone 5th Addition. Hagen declined and believed because the lot size depth would be twice what it is for Lot 12 to his lot. He reiterated his concern for a smaller, more cramped feeling of proposed Lot 11 and 12. Gabler added that it was unknown where the house would be set on the property. Hagen explained that on the plans it indicates that the homes would be spaced by equal setbacks from "Street G". Hagen and the Planning Commission continued dialogue regarding his proposed adjustment to the plat and the developer's proposed plat. Grittman estimated the buildable areas on the lots near the concerned area. Grittman noted that they are all comparable to each other, but not in total lot area. He also explained that the building on Lot 12 would still be set back from 891h Street NE similar to those homes on 891h Street NE, but additional setback requirements for corner lots would be required. Grittman noted that the lot side yard abutting a rear yard is common on single-family plats. Lastly, Grittman commented that for Lots 11 and 12 of the proposed development would have a 30-foot front yard setback with 80 to 100 feet of rear yard space to the neighbor's side yard lot line. If the lots were combined, a home could be constructed as close as 10 feet to the neighbor's property. The Planning Commission recognized Hagen's concerns. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1. Rezoning ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-037, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM A-O, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 5 1 14 Decision 2. Preliminary Plat ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-038, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FEATHERSTONE 5TH ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 3. Development Stage PUD ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-039, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR FEATHERSTONE 5TH ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD for Featherstone 5th Addition PID 155-252-000010 Outlot A, Featherstone 4th Addition 1. Lots on curves are re -notated to indicate actual lot width per Zoning Ordinance definition. 2. Street extension for 891h Street NE is constructed to its full extent in the plat. 3. Street extension for Street 6 is constructed to its full extent and connects to 891h Street NE. 4. The street name is subject to the approval of City requirements. 5. Park Dedication requirements for the full Featherstone project are reiterated, and if necessary, re -calculated and included in the updated Development Agreements and recorded against the current and future phases. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer's report, dated November 19th, 2020 7. Compliance with other staff comments as submitted. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the Expansion of Outdoor Storage and Changes to Facility Operations for an existing Bulk Fuel Sales & Storage Use in an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District Applicant: Beaudry Oil & Propane Steve Grittman provided the background of the application and a location map of the subject parcel. Grittman stated that the development and the parcel to the north was originally approved under a Planned Unit Development that arranged for common access and joint driveway design. The original occupant of the subject site was an oil tank storage and distributer company that formerly Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 6 114 occupied much of the land that Monticello Community Center is located on now. At the time of the approval of the Community Center, the City was looking for a site to relocate this user to and the current subject site was the chosen location. The approval of the PUD waived many of the typical zoning standards to accommodate the convenient relocation of this facility. The approvals anticipated that over time as additional use was made of this property that eventually the site would come closer into conformance with our zoning standards. The applicant has modified its use from the original bulk fuel/oil tank storage to more of a propane facility including storage of propane cylinders and filling of some of the cylinders. They have also been using shipping containers for storage and shelter for the filling of the propane cylinders. There have been very little improvements to the site overtime. The applicant is seeking approval to continue those evolving uses. The City's process is to review the terms of the original PUD approval and understand how the change in use would be consistent with the original intent and as the site intensity to seek additional improvements to bring it closer to conformance with our code. Grittman noted the use of the site is primarily located in the northwest corner of the parcel. There is dense wooded land east of the activity facility. The remaining southern portion of the parcel is unoccupied, but at times have been used for storage. The applicant's intent is to confine the activity and use area to the northwest area. In staffs review, the use is generally consistent with what was originally anticipated at the site (bulk fuel facility with some storage), is an appropriate use of the site, but the intent of the original PUD was to seek additional improvements to the site over time. Grittman reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. Sam Murdoff noted the conditions on the original PUD and asked if additional plantings occurred along the freeway. Grittman declined. Murdoff asked if there have been any other expansions since the original approval. Grittman believed the use of the site has ebbed and flowed over the years. There has been some storage use on the south portion of the site. The applicant is proposing to confine storage to the north portion of the site, but staff would like to see that delineation on a plan. Murdoff asked if additional paving or curbing has occurred on the site. Grittman declined. John Alstad asked for the size of the lot. Ken Beaudry, the applicant, noted that it was 3.62 acres. Alstad asked if there were any regulations from preventing what they are seeking to do on the site. Grittman noted they want to receive authorization for tank storage and filling operation. If this were a new development, the site would be required to follow paving, curbing, and landscaping requirements. Alstad noted the Timber Ridge letter that was received for public comment. Grittman explained that an advantage that exists currently is the dense number of trees between the activity area and the Timber Ridge development. Grittman noted that the Fire and Engineering Departments are looking at this site with some specificity to make sure that any potential danger Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 7 1 14 with a spill would be contained according to fire codes. Grittman believed that was the intent with the early planting plan along that boundary line now. There would be a buffer landscaping requirement from our Zoning Ordinance between the townhomes and the south area if the use were to expand to that area. Charlotte Gabler noted correspondence received from Wright County Assessor's Office that indicates the property has been in place since 1999 and the townhomes were built between 2002 through 2004. She further read that it was unlikely that the updated CUP would have any effect on the value of the neighborhood. It was recommended if the City were concerned, proper landscaping and screening would address it. Andrew Tapper was looking for clarification on the purpose for the land use application. Grittman explained that it was to accommodate the shift of uses from the original approval. The original PUD was for the fuel tank storage that was originally built there and had very little of the container storage and filling that the applicant proposed and is believed to be doing currently on the site. Tapper asked if the fuel transitioned from fuel oil to propane. Grittman confirmed. Murdoff asked for clarification on what was triggering the land use application. Grittman stated that the site is no longer purely a bulk fuel facility. Angela Schumann stated that the 1999 approval appears to be limited to just the bulk fuel cylinders along with some storage building facilities. Beaudry is proposing to add the small propane cylinders and the residential cylinder tanks in outdoor storage areas. Staff provided the site plan. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak first. Ken Beaudry, the applicant, noted that when they purchased the property in 2012, they did not realize the stringent CUP that was placed on the property. Beaudry indicated that permits were approved, and installation is scheduled to install the required fire hydrant. Beaudry indicated that the Monticello Fire Department has inspected the property and noted that it meets all State and Federal regulations. Beaudry indicated that with the application submittal was a site plan that indicated the location of the storage. He added that his crew would work on cleaning up the site too. He indicated that he would like to color coordinate all buildings and storage containers (hoping to keep on site). Beaudry indicated they aren't using the bulk fuel facility a lot, but that they do a lot of storage for biodiesel. They have a Pro -To -Go, a cylinder exchange business typically seen at gas stations or hardware stores where you can exchange 20-pound cylinders. This operation is completely run out of their Monticello plant and a lot of the filling occurs at the site. Beaudry noted that the reason they utilized the storage containers, unknowingly of any violation to code, was because it was the safest way for their employees to fill those containers. He noted that the shared access with Electro Industries is gravel and to bypass that requirement of requiring pavement just for their site. He noted cost concern of the construction of a building for cylinder filling and noted that he would need to discontinue that use on the site if buildings were required. Beaudry also explained that he was open to adding a few trees and noted that the site contains close to an acre of woods, but that they would do a better job of keeping that facility cleaned up. The most important request of Mr. Beaudry was to keep the storage containers. Planning Commission Minutes — December I st, 2020 Page S 1 14 Tapper asked if the two current shipping containers were used for storage and filling. Beaudry indicated that one container is for the small, filled cylinder storage to protect the tanks from the elements. The other one has automation equipment that fills the twenty -pound cylinders. Tapper asked if electrical service in one of the containers. Beaudry confirmed and noted that it has been inspected by the Fire Department and is also fire proof. Gabler asked if there are locations in the city where shipping containers are being used. Schumann confirmed that there is a self -storage facility that utilizes this type of structure for storage under an Interim Use Permit (IUP). There are some of the City's industrial users that have been grandfathered in and using shipping containers for storage as well. Schumann indicated that the Beaudry site is a slightly different use. It's not used for storage and is an active use that replaces a building. Gabler asked if the City could approve the use of the shipping containers under an IUP. Schumann noted that a condition of approval from the staff report indicates a phased approach, but an IUP would be another mechanism. Grittman noted that they are using the PUD effectively as an IUP. Murdoff asked about the surface driveway from Electro Industries. Grittman noted that it is mostly gravel. Murdoff also asked if the shipping containers match the rest of the structures on the site. Beaudry confirmed, if approved, all the buildings and containers would be color coordinated. Murdoff asked if any of the small tanks are stored outside. Beaudry provided the site plan including the outdoor storage plan. It was noted that empty 20-pound cylinders are left outside, and full ones are placed in the shipping container. It was noted that it was limited to have storage of empty propane tanks inside structures. Steve Christ, 11573 Spruce Drive, asked for clarification on the size of the tanks, the quantity, and if they would be spread across the property at some point. He had a concern with that there was no defined limit on the use of the site. He was also concerned about a potential propane leak and which way the propane would go if a leak occurred. Murdoff asked how many of the residential 500-gallon tanks and 20-pound propane tanks would be on the site. Beaudry indicated they had several of each type of tank. He estimated 100-125 tanks of the residential 500-gallon tanks. Beaudry indicated for the 20-pound propane tanks; they do not refurbish the tanks. They receive a load of refurbished tanks; Beaudry fills them and delivers them to customers. The semis take the old, empty tanks then. He estimated that Beaudry fills about 100, 20-pound tanks per load. Tapper asked if the 500-gallon residential tanks are empty. Beaudry confirmed and added that most of the tanks are brand new. He indicated that his company installs the tank at the customers site and fills them there. Tapper noted a picture of tall tanks and asked what was in those. Beaudry indicated that there were a variety of sized fuel tanks and they currently don't have fuel in them. They have been storing biodiesel in them, Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 9 1 14 which is considered non-flammable. There is nothing over 1,000 gallons for propane tanks. Murdoff asked how long it takes to go through a semi load of the 20-pound tanks. Beaudry indicated on average two weeks from May through September. The remaining part of the year, the business is cut in half. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Murdoff asked for clarification on the rules for outdoor storage in the I-2 District. Schumann indicated that outdoor storage is limited to 100 percent of the square footage of the principal building. In this case, it is a tough standard to apply directly. Murdoff noted that it may be useful to take some time to determine what an appropriate amount of outdoor storage space for this site would be and a screening process. Tapper reminded the commission that the use is outdoor storage. Beaudry noted that they selected that site because you cannot see the tanks from the freeway. Beaudry indicated that they submitted to staff a plan for the number of tanks and he understood that anything above that amount would need to come back for consideration. Tapper asked if the entire lot is fenced. Beaudry confirmed and noted it is a chain link fence. The Commission talked about visual appearance of the site, especially the outdoor storage. Gabler asked if MnDOT had any comments regarding the application. Grittman responded that none of the improvements would impact MnDOT. Murdoff asked if any safety precautions needed to occur if anything were to happen to a tank. Grittman responded that was the role of the Fire Department to make sure that they added the improvements necessary to meet fire code. Murdoff was opposed to Exhibit Z comments referring to the addition of pavement as they are coming in from a gravel road. He also noted if the shipping containers are meeting code and match the color of all structures, he was okay with them staying. Decision 1. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2020-036 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BULK FUEL STORAGE AND FILLING, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXHIBIT Z WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF REMOVING ITEM 2 AND 5 BE CHANGED THAT THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS CAN REMAIN BUT ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE PAINTED A UNIFORM COLOR. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. It was noted, the Planning Commission received written comment from some residents of Timber Ridge neighborhood. That letter was posted online and is entered into the record. The Planning Commission and the applicant also received a copy. . Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 10 1 14 EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit for an Amendment to a PUD 2156 River Street West PID: 155500041302 1. Installation of the required hydrant, a holdover condition from the prior PUD approval. It is staff s understanding that this project is in process as of the date of the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Ground surface treatment of outdoor storage areas to control weed growth and drainage. This may include gravel or similar surface, also to be denoted on the revised site plan. 3. Notation on the revised site plan of the limits of use and improvements, which may be expanded and amended under the PUD amendment process identified in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Additional initial planting/landscaping improvements at the south boundary of the property along I-94, as well as remaining area along the east boundary with the residential development. 5. The developer shall paint all buildings and shelters with consistent colors. 6. Other staff comments and recommendations. C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a single-family residence in the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District Applicant: James M. & Kaye A. Eisele Steve Grittman provided an aerial image of the subject site and noted that it is an existing single-family lot. The applicants have removed the home on the subject parcel and are seeking to construct a new home on the property. Due to the shape and history of the lot, the applicants were seeking a variance to side yard setback facing Vine Street. The encroachment would be within six feet from the side property line, rather than the typical 20 feet that is seen on a corner lot. Grittman provided the site plan of the proposed "T" shaped residential structure. The proposal better meets the zoning ordinance than the original structure did, but because the home occupies a different part of the parcel, a variance was required and grandfathering rights were dismissed. Grittman explained the review process for variance requests. Grittman noted that the Vine Street right-of-way was much wider (80 feet) than what would be normally found in a residential area. Because of the right-of-way, a significantly wide boulevard, and narrow cul-du-sac roadway, it limits the ability to face a driveway out to it. The applicants have designed a home that shifts the property to a six-foot setback from Vine Street, which is typical of the City's interior side yard setback requirement. On the west side of the proposed property, the Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page l 1 1 14 applicants comply with the setback. The applicants also designed a garage that would access from the south part of the structure in a hammerhead driveway rather than backing up right onto the right-of-way and parking could occur on the driveway rather than on the boulevard portion of the property. Staff felt the applicants created a reasonable design for the use of this single-family lot given the changes in right-of-way and dedication that the applicants have participated in over the years. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions as identified in Exhibit Z. John Alstad asked for clarification on the location of the setback. Grittman noted that the setback of the structure is proposed to be six feet from the property line, which would normally be 20 feet for a corner lot. Andrew Tapper asked if the property line is setback so far from the street because of easements. Grittman explained that the nature of the Original Plat had a number of these very wide right-of-ways. Our typical code for new plats requires 60 feet in width rather than 80 feet (existing on Vine Street). In addition, the cul-du-sac street design is narrower than our normal public street with the width of the boulevard much wider than a typical single-family condition. Alstad asked for clarification on the history between the property owner and the City. Grittman stated overtime the property owner was cooperative with the City and adjacent property owners in dedicating and accommodating some property changes in this area. Sam Murdoff asked how close the street was from the property line. Grittman estimated 25 feet. Murdoff clarified that the structure would be 30 feet from the road. Grittman confirmed that it would be.30 feet from the curb to the structure. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Jim Eisele, the applicant, indicated his intent to construct a new home on the narrow lot. The home that was demolished would sit similar on the property as the proposed structure. Alstad asked if it was occasional to receive these types of variance requests. Grittman stated that 6 feet was our standard setback, but since this is a corner lot, there is an larger setback. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-040, APPROVING THE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE EISELE HOME AT 704 4TH STREET WEST, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Eisele Variance 704 4th Street West Planning Commission Minutes — December 1 st, 2020 Page 12 114 Parts of Lots 5 and 6, Block 23, Town of Monticello 1. The new home shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. 2. The new driveway will be required to meet the zoning code. For a single family R-2 house the maximum width at the back of curb is 28' and 30' at the property line. 3. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to approve a one year extension of a variance approval for WSI/Polaris Angela Schumann noted that although the City Code allows the Community Development Department to administratively grant a one-year extension for variance approvals. Schumann was more comfortable bringing these requests to the Commission so that they knew of the requested extension. WSI/Polaris requested a variance to a setback for an accessory piece of equipment for their building. As they continue to make process improvements internal to their building, they've not been able to install this particular piece of equipment and are seeking a one-year extension to the granting of the variance. Staff has no concerns with this request. It was noted that the staff report should reflect that the original variance request was approved in December 2019. Tapper asked if staff were able to follow-up on his concern about the fact that the equipment is a condenser unit and its proximity to the roadway. Schumann noted she forwarded that concern to the City Engineer and he indicated that he did not have concern. Schumann noted she'd go back to the record to find that correspondence. Tapper reiterated previous concern with a condensing unit and cold weather possibly creating a fog that condenses on the road. The motion would be to extend the variance approval to December 3, 2021. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR POLARIS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2019. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. B. Consideration to appoint John Alstad to a new term on the Planning Commission John Alstad confirmed his interest in serving a new term on the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes — December l st, 2020 Page 13 1 14 SAM MURDOFF TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER ALSTAD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. As previously discussed, there was an opening on the Planning Commission because of Sam Murdoff's appointment to the City Council. The position has been posted and currently the City has received four applications. The opening for the position would be until December 1 Ot". Schumann noted that staff would select Tuesdays that could work for the interviews and send them to the Planning Commission to see what works for consensus. The City Council would also be invited to attend the interviews. Appointments for officers would be made during the regular January 2020 meeting. Schumann provided an update regarding CMRP. She encouraged the Commission to review the PowerPoint presented at the October 22" d CMRP meeting. A summary overview of the organization's activities was also provided in the staff report. The partnerships next meeting is scheduled for December 3, 2020. 4. Added Items Spirit Hills South — Angela Schumann explained that the Spirit Hills plat received preliminary plat approval and amendment to conditional use permit (CUP) for planned unit development. The developer requested a one-year extension of deadline for submission of final plat. The extension runs until May 2021. The developer will be required to submit for final plat by that date or resubmit for preliminary plat and amendment to CUP after that timeline. Schumann noted that the County is planning for a reconstruction along Fenning Avenue and the City is paying attention to County design in that area. Schumann also noted that with that reconstruction would be a trail connection to Hillside Farms. 5. Adjournment SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:21 P.M. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: January 5th, 2021 Attest: Angela S�ch4mapn, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — December l st, 2020 Page 14 114