Planning Commission Minutes 04-01-2014MINUTES
REGULAR. MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 1St, 2014 - 6 PM, Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann, Grant Sala
Absent: None
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman, Lloyd Hilgart, Darlene
Weese, Pete Hess, Joshua LaFond, Kevin Pfeiffer, Charlie Pfeffer
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
2. Citizen Comments None
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None
4. Approval of Planning Commission minutes
a. Special Meeting — February 24th, 2014
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24TH, 2014
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
b. Special Joint Planning -Parks Commission Meeting — March 4th, 2014
As there was no quorum of the Parks Commission, the Planning Commission
conducted the meeting. Minutes were not yet available for consideration.
C. Regular Meeting — March 4"', 2014
Minutes were not yet available for consideration.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to required side yard
setbacks in the WSRR (Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River) Overlay
District and to required front yard setbacks in the R -1 (Single - Family Residence)
District, Planning Case Number: 2014 -009
Steve Grittman reported that the applicant requested a variance from side and front yard
setback requirements in the R -1 (Single - Family Residence) District and WSRR (Wild &
Scenic River Recreation) District in order to construct a 20 x 30 foot attached garage on
the property.
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
Grittman indicated that the property meets criteria for approval for a variance as specified
in Section 2.4(C) of the Zoning Ordinance in that there are practical difficulties in
improving the property in a reasonable manner due to the unique lot configuration and
front and side yard setbacks required. The proposed garage meets setback requirements
of the Shoreland Ordinance and is located on the side of the house which is not visible
from the river which is consistent with the intent of the WSRR district regulations.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Applicant Darlene Weese, of 317 Riverview Drive, (Lot 5, Manhattan Lots) indicated
that she had recently moved to Monticello and requires an attached garage for health and
safety reasons.
Contractor Paul Hess said that he'd build the garage in accordance with Exhibit Z.
As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Charlotte Gabler asked that the property address listed in the staff report be corrected to
reflect the actual property address 317 Riverview Drive in the minutes.
Decision 1: Regarding the request for a variance from side and front yard setback
requirements in the WSRR District to-build an attached garage onto the existing home at
317 Riverview Drive
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -033 APPROVING THE
GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z.
ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
EXHIBIT Z
Weese Garage Setback Variance
317 Riverview Drive, Lot 5, Manhattan Lots
1. The applicant provides building elevation plans of the proposed garage for review by
City staff as part of the building permit application. Elevations should illustrate
building materials, garage height, and garage appearance.
2. The applicant submits layout plans or a revised survey of the garage project for
review by City staff. The revised survey should indicate the following:
a. Site drainage plan acceptable to the City Engineer.
b. The location of a driveway meeting the entrance of the proposed garage, and
areas of existing driveway to be renovated. The applicant should consider
options for how the existing driveway can be renovated with the intent of
reducing impervious surface on the site to the minimum extent necessary to
move vehicles to and from the location of the proposed garage.
c. Erosion control measures in the vicinity of the garage project.
OA
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
d. Landscape restoration (lawn or landscape plantings) in areas where the
driveway has been renovated and gravel removed.
e. Stormwater management techniques if required by the City Engineer.
As the Planning Commission is the final authority on variances, this item will not move
forward to City Council for consideration.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a K -12
School in an R -1 (Sinpale Family Residence) District. Applicant: Holy Spirit
Academy, Planning Case Number: 2014 -014
Steve Grittman summarized that Holy Spirit Academy, a privately funded K -12 school,
requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the west portion of St. Henry's
Catholic Church building to be used for school use. The church building is located at
1001 East 7th Street, (Lot 1, Block 1, Church of St. Henry 1St Addition).
The application specified a maximum student capacity of 100 -150 at the facility. Based
on initial enrollment projections, the school will have little or no impact on surrounding
land uses or public facilities. Further growth in enrollment would necessitate either
significant changes to the site or a move to a larger facility.
No exterior physical modifications to the site or building are proposed and there is no
conflict with parking circulation or supply, drop -off and pickup or loading activities.
Signage has not yet been designed but is intended to meet zoning requirements.
The proposed school use meets the performance standards as outlined within Section
5.2.D (7) and criteria for approval for a conditional use permit as outlined within Section
2.4 (D)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Grittman indicated that R -1 (Single - Family Residence) is a holding district for facilities
which are institutional in nature. Churches and schools are listed as conditional uses in
the R -1.
Charlotte Gabler asked about the previous zoning of this parcel. Grittman indicated that
the revised zoning ordinance no longer identifies public assembly as the base use. Gabler
also asked if safety concerns related to the location of the playfield in proximity to the
upcoming Fallon Avenue overpass construction project had been addressed.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Applicant Joshua LaFond, of 1758 1hrig Avenue in Buffalo, responded to commissioner
questions and provided details related to plans for the academy. He said that roadway
safety is not expected to be an issue as students would not gather within a football's
throw of the street and would be monitored during outdoor breaks. The academy expects
to initially serve 9h and l Oth grade population and has budgeted for 20 students at this
time. Fundraising efforts may boost enrollment to 40 within the next few years. Seventy
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
students, many from surrounding communities, expressed interest in attending the
academy. Staff plan to review bus transportation options. LaFond confirmed agreement
with the conditions in Exhibit Z.
As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2014 -034
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED
ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE
WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. GRANT SALA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval
St. Henry's Catholic Church Conditional Use Permit
1. A detailed sign plan shall be submitted subject review by City Staff and sign
permit.
2. Future site and /or modifications related to an intensification of the school or
church use shall require approval of conditional use permit amendment.
3. Internal building modifications shall be subject to building permit as deemed
appropriate by the City Building Official.
This item will go before the City Council on the consent agenda at the April 7th meeting.
Charlotte Gabler left the meeting at 6:30 p.m. due to a previous commitment.
7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings 61 Addition and
consideration of Final Plat for Union Crossings 6' Addition, Planning Case
Number: 2014 -004
Ryan Companies requested that the parcel located at 429 7th Street East (Lot 2, Block 1,
Union Crossings 5th Addition), be subdivided and that the remaining parcel be preserved
for a final tenant on the east end of the Union Crossings shopping center. This will enable
Ryan Companies to execute a lease with the Marshalls retail store under construction at
the site and prepare the new lot for future development.
Grittman explained that the new lot consists of a building site and a narrow strip of
property which extends into the existing parking lot. Odd parcel shapes are the result of
lot lines drawn to accommodate the generalized ratio between amount of land they own
and the size of the building required for each tenant.
The request involves identifying easements and confirming the extension and provision
of utilities to the each site. The operating agreement is to be amended to accommodate
references to the new parcel. There are currently no plans underway to develop the
parcel.
El
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
Angela Schumann explained that inline retail development was required to be consistent
with the 2007 PUD amendment. She pointed out that current PUD amendment
accommodates the final lot configuration. Grittman noted that each PUD amendment
establishes a new addition.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Landscape architect Kevin Pfeiffer representing Ryan Companies said that the remaining
parcel would be about half the size of the 18,000 square foot Marshalls lot. Pfeiffer said
that the private operations agreement should cover cross - easement within the property
and that the proposed public easement for sanitary line to the undeveloped parcel would
be removed. He also indicated that each property owner would be responsible for parking
lot maintenance based on square footage. Pfeiffer confirmed agreement with Exhibit Z.
As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
GRANT SALA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -035, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
EXHIBIT Z
PUD Amendment and Final Plat for Union Crossings 6th Addition
1429 Street East, Lot 2, Block 1, Union Crossings 5th Addition
1. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with all recommendations of the
City Engineer regarding grading, drainage, and utilities, if any.
2. The applicant shall provide documentation of updated easements for public and
private sewer, water, and access to the new parcels in the plat.
3. Execute a development agreement covering the terms of the City's Plat and PUD
approval.
8. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter 3 as related to guiding principles and locations for future high density
housing. Applicant: City of Monticello. Planning Case Number: 2014 - 015
Steve Grittman pointed out that, although the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan)
categorizes all residential development as "Places to Live," it does not provide guidance
for considering potential multi - family residential land use options. He recommended that
amending the Comp Plan to incorporate the factors and principles jointly identified by the
Planning Commission and City Council would provide a framework within which to
discuss locating R -4 (High Density Residence) zoning districts.
Grittman briefly reviewed factors and related issues including replacement land use, local
transportation network, architectural compatibility, building massing, adequate public
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
facilities, proximity to lower density residential neighborhoods and proximity to other
high density residential neighborhoods.
The Comp Plan language was proposed to be amended (noted as underlined) as follows:
"A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi - family
housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive
Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density housing. It is likely that
Monticello will need additional higher density housing to:
➢ Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population
➢ Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the
community
➢ Provide housing needed to attract the workforce required to achieve economic
development goals of the City
Higher density residential land uses should be located and designed to be compatible with
nearby residential or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate larger buildings and added traffic
generation. In addition, siting factors for high density residential uses will prioritize access to
services and amenities including public utilities, parks, trails and open space, and commercial
and /or medical services. It will be important, when considering potential designation of high
density housing development, that the parcels meet the specific standards of the zoning district,
and such development can be accommodated in accordance with the policies in this Plan."
There was significant discussion as to the value of amending the Comp Plan to include
these considerations as it did not seem, to some commissioners, as if it provided much
clarification and was subject to interpretation. Grittman explained that the
Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide broad guidance and that the zoning ordinance
would more specifically address implementation.
It was also suggested that one factor may sometimes outweigh another depending on site
or other considerations. Grittman pointed out that the City always has some discretion
over the land use plan and rezoning actions. This led to some agreement that the proposed
amendment to the Comp Plan include language to clarify that land use decisions would
take into consideration but not be limited to the factors identified.
Grittman responded to additional questions related to general zoning considerations, the
amount of undeveloped land available for rezoning and the level of demand for step -up
multi - family housing development.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
2
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -036,
RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE FACTORS AND PRINCIPLES INTO
THE CODE TO MANAGE AND DIRECT THE LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE HIGH
DENSITY HOUSING AREAS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND
TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE AS FOLLOWS, "WHILE THESE COMMENTS AND
THE COMMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE INTENDED TO BE
INSTRUCTIVE, THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONLY FACTORS THAT
MIGHT COME INTO PLAY ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES ". GRANT SALA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1. (Brad Fyle voted in opposition
stating that there wasn't enough guidance for the R -4 District.)
9. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(I) as related to guiding principles and locations for
future R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) zoninu districts. Applicant: City of
Monticello, Planning Case Number: 2014 - 015
Grittman explained that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is a companion to the
Comp Plan amendment considered prior to this item.
The proposed zoning amendment would revise the purpose statement of the R -4 District
and specify the conditions under which the City would consider potential rezonings to the
R -4. This would establish standards for high density housing and criteria to be used when
considering such development requests.
Chapter 3.4 (I) of the zoning ordinance is proposed to be amended (noted as underlined)
as follows:
The purpose of the "R -4 ", medium -high density residential district is to provide
for medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more
units per building, and at densities of between Wand 25 units per acre. The
district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in areas
appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the City on a case by
basis. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R -4 District only when, in its
sole discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R -4
district, including location, private and public services, and compatibility with
existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the
suitability of a site for R -4 rezoning, the City prioritize the following site and
area factors:
Replacement Land Uses. R -4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and
circumstances:
Land already zoned for R -3.
Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be
considered "prime" commercial (the City would like to protect
"prime" commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in
the future).
7
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods.
• R -4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high densit
residential areas, however the nature and concentration of existing multi-
family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid an over
concentration of these uses.
• R -4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is
determined that the high density site can address the site and area factors
provided here.
Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing.
• In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R -4 District buildings
need to be lower profile with regards to size and mass, or need to be
screened or buffered by distance and natural features.
Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High densitv residential development
shall be located to provide for the following essential services and amenities:
• Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without
overburdening them. R -4 development may b� e required to provide
additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning_ policies.
• Connection to public utilities.
• Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic
generation that would utilize local streets in lower density residential
areas.
• Proximity to commercial and /or medical services.
This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined
in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses,
two - family homes, or single family homes.
Grittman pointed out that an applicant would be required to have identified a concept
plan for development prior to submitting a rezoning request.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Development broker Charlie Pfeffer suggested that the R -4 discussion may be
immaterial since the current Comp Plan language does not point to a need to
develop additional multi - family housing at this time.
As there were no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Grittman responded by noting that the Comp Plan anticipates the need for
additional multi - family housing moving forward because the current stock is
aging. He pointed out that plan calls for step -up housing which includes an
emphasis on higher amenities currently unavailable.
Planning Commission Minutes: 4/01/14
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO RECOMMEND ORDINANCE NO. 594 AMENDING
THE R -4 ZONING DISTRICT TO INCORPORATE FACTORS AND PRINCIPLES
INTO THE CODE TO MANAGE AND DIRECT THE LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE R-
4 AREAS. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-
1. (Brad Fyle voted in opposition stating that there wasn't enough guidance for the R -4
District.)
10. Consideration to review Special Use Overlay District land area analysis and to can
for a public hearing on related amendments to the Official Zoning Map for the City
of Monticello
Grittman explained that localities may regulate adult entertainment oriented businesses
based on negative secondary impacts but are required to accommodate such uses within
the community or be subject to legal challenge. He asked that the commission call for a
public hearing to review findings and obtain citizen input related to a land area analysis
recently conducted. The purpose of the analysis is to verify that the City continues to
meet the intent of the Special Use Overlay District and the legal requirements for adult
oriented uses despite changes in the inventory of lots potentially available for adult use as
a result of rezoning actions. Grittman indicated that the City still seems to be in
compliance with the adult use requirement.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, MAY
6TH AT 6 PM TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, TO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS FOR THE
SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
11. Community Development Director's Report None
12. Adjournment
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:48 PM. SAM
BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri�
Approved: June 3, 2,,14
Attest:
Angela S�l ioa#n, Community Development Director
0