Planning Commission Minutes 07-02-2013MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 2, 2013 - 6:00 PM - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala, Sam Burvee
Absent: None
Others: Lloyd Hilgart, Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman
1. Call to order
Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
a) Regular Meeting of June 4, 2013
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO CONSIDER THE JUNE 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES AT THE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
a) R -A Zoning — (Lloyd Hilgart)
5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a
request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business District to R -4 (Medium-High
Density Residence) District Planning Case Number: 2013 -023
Applicant IRET Properties requested that the parcel, located at Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview
Square, (at the southeast quadrant of County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard), be
redesignated and rezoned to allow for construction of multi - family housing. The property
is 5.2 acres and is currently vacant.
The request involves a change in land use from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a
change in zoning from B -4 (Regional Business) to R -4 (Medium -High Density
Residential.)
The request meets criteria required for rezoning. Zoning Ordinance 2.4 (B) (5) Approval
Criteria (b) requires that the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a
changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area; and
(c) requires that the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and
Planning Commission Minutes — 7102113
objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan.
The request also meets criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan in that, because
some 40% of the city's multi - family housing stock was constructed prior to 1970,
new multi - family housing stock is a "community need." The plan also requires that the
City consider compatibility with existing and proposed uses surrounding the property.
The proposed site plan illustrates how a building could be constructed on the property to
meet the requirements of the R -4 district. Surrounding land uses are reasonably well
isolated from the proposed site.
Because of the site's proximity to the Mississippi river, it is also subject to Minnesota
Wild & Scenic River requirements. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has
been provided 30 days to comment on the request.
Grittman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan supports land use decisions that
encourage commercial development downtown. Although several areas in town are
zoned commercial, options for multiple - family residential development are limited. The
R -4 District was created was to allow for new multi- family housing development
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's move up housing objective. The Conditional
Use Permit required would define the higher performance standards of the R -4.
Charlotte Gabler suggested that the proposed rezoning would be a lost commercial
opportunity. She also indicated that the project might better fit the downtown area or
across the freeway.
Lloyd Hilgart pointed out that this project would require a rezoning no matter where it
sought to locate because there are no parcels zoned R -4 at this time.
Bill Spartz asked how the site might be used under current zoning. Grittman replied that
retail, restaurants and offices are permitted uses in the B -4 District.
Bill Spartz opened the public hearing.
Steve Feneis, 615 7t' St N., Sartell, MN stated that IRET Properties seeks to provide the
type of higher density, higher amenity housing described in the R -4 development
standards. He noted that the site had not attracted a buyer in the ten years it has been
designated commercial. He said that the proposed R -4 use would provide for logical
district transition as the site is actually on the outskirts of commercial development
according to the Embracing Downtown plan. He suggested that the 92 unit building
would create less traffic, lighting and noise issues than would a commercial development.
Dan Miller, of Miller Architects and Builders, said that the proposed plan includes a
community room, a fitness center, a pool facility and underground parking. He
summarized rent would range from $100041400 per month at a rate of $1 -1.20 per
square foot.
Township supervisor Pete Stupar, who owns property at 9794 Hart Blvd., said that he and
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 7102113
his wife are against this kind of a structure on such a small parcel. He suggested that twin
homes would better match the community. He was concerned about increased traffic and
liability. He thanked Commissioner Gabler for sharing her concerns.
Dick Berquist, of 9796 Hart Blvd, said that he was against the apartments because it
would generate additional traffic.
Dave Gasler, of 7410 Kahler Ct. NE in Otsego, the pastor at the church on the adjacent
property said he had some concerns about runoff. He asked that drainage be pumped
around the south side of the church property. He was also concerned that the
development be adequately screened.
Richard Burke, of 9800 Hart Blvd, said that a four story apartment building would be out
of place on the corner.
Janet Murdesdorf, of 6178 Mill Run Road, spoke of her concern about preserving the
wildlife in her backyard.
Josh Blonigan, of 9806 Hart Blvd., shared concerns about added traffic at an already
dangerous intersection. Headlights would be directed into his home and yardf He pointed
out that the applicant would have to get a variance to the 25 foot building height limit to
build a four story building. He said that project doesn't fit with the neighborhood.
Nikki Blonigan, of 9806 Hart Blvd., shared her concern that the increased traffic would
be a danger for kids riding bikes in the neighborhood.
Jeremiah Rush, of 9808 Hart Blvd., said that he lives next door to the site. He agreed with
the concerns related to increased traffic. He is also concerned about added drainage
because his backyard currently floods. He doesn't want to look out at 12 -20 windows 100
feet from his home.
Brad Fyle asked about the height restriction. Staff confirmed that the Mississippi Wild
and Scenic regulations restrict building height to 25 feet and agreed to make a copy of the
regulations available.
Angela Schumann noted that since the public hearing was to be continued, the public
would have an opportunity to provide additional comment at the August 6a' meeting.
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment
reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live," and
Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST TO
ALLOW FOR DNR COMMENT PERIOD, AND TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO
THE AUGUST 6', 2013 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SAM
BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Planning Commission ]Minutes — 7102113
b. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending Monticello
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3 (iD) — Requirements for Fences & Walls by District
Type Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case Number: 2013 - 019
Steve Grittman summarized that the Commission had discussed stepped height,
transparency and slope height issues related to front yard fencing in residential areas at its
June meeting.
Grittman said that there had been agreement about eliminating the three foot step
requirement in the front yard as it would result in more uniform front yard fences and
make code enforcement easier. As a result, language related to the step fencing issue,
which had been reflected in Subp. (a)(2), would be deleted from the ordinance. The
section would read as follows:
Section 4.3 (D)(1) Fences and Walls Residential Districts
(a) Front Yards
(i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards
and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line.
No change would be made to Section 4.3 (D)(1) Subp. (b).
Staff recommended maintaining the 50% transparency requirement for front yard fencing
stating that raising the fence height to four feet may interfere with visibility for vehicles
backing out of driveways dependent upon the transparency of the fencing material used.
Staff had also suggested including language in the amendment which would create a
definition of average heights over the span of a fence to accommodate common slope
differences.
Staff recommended adding a paragraph as follows:
Section 8.2 (B)(5)
(v) Fence and Wall Height on Slopes in Residential Side and Rear Yards
Where a fence is constructed of posts and panels down a slope in a side or
rear yard of residential property, and the top rail of said fence or wall
maintains a horizontal alignment, the height of said fence shall be
measured as follows:
The maximum fence height identified in the ordinance anblicable to said
fence shall be measured from existing grade to the top of the fence panel
nearest to the uWhill post. The height of the top edge of the fence panel
may exceed the maximum required height by up to two (2) feet when
measured at the downhill os�y fencing used to enclose the gab below
the fence panel shall match the panel in material, color, and style, or may
be retaining wall constructed of stone, brick or concrete masonry units
designed and sold explicitly for such purpose.
4
Planning Commission Minutes — 7102113
Grittman also confirmed that no change is recommend related to the visibility triangle
area at intersections.
Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing
was closed.
Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -045 recommending approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence
regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1).
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013 -045
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CHANGING FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS.
BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. (Bill Spartz did
not vote as he had introduced the fence height issue as a private citizen.)
7. Added items
a) R -A Zoning — (Lloyd Hilgart)
Hilgart suggested that the Commission discuss setbacks and tree preservation in
Carlisle Village. Angela Schumann noted that staff has had to enforce the old
zoning code because development standards are locked into the Planned Unit
Developments at Carlisle Village, Hunter's Crossing, Sunset Ponds, and
Featherstone neighborhoods. Schumann agreed to schedule a neighborhood tour
to see development standards currently in place.
8. Adiourn
GRANT SALA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:48 PM. SAM BURVEE
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri
Approved: Au st 6,
Attest:
Angela Schurf.4a Co unity Development Director
5