City Council Minutes 11-25-2013 SpecialMINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL AND
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 25, 2013 — 5:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present -CC: Clint Herbst Lloyd Hilgart, Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf
Present -PC: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala
Absent: None
Others: Angela Schumann, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman
1. Call to Order
Mayor Herbst called the special joint meeting to order at 5:43 p.m.
2. Purpose of Workshop: Review R -4 District regulations
Angela Schumann explained the format for the meeting and turned it over to Steve
Grittman for his presentation on potential R -4 sites.
3. Discussion of R -4 District regulations
Steve Grittman explained that the city recently turned down an application for rezoning
to R -4, which is a new zoning district in the zoning code. The R -4 was intended to fill a
gap in the new zoning code for multi - family housing with greater density and higher
amenities. It makes sense to look at the criteria for the R -4 district and potential sites that
might lend well toward an R -4 development. By walking through the standards and
comparing them to various sites should allow council and planning commission an
opportunity to determine sites for potential R -4 developments.
Clint Herbst asked if there was anyone that feels that there are no available sites in the
city that would fit R -4 zoning. He wanted to make sure that they were going down the
right path. Angela Schumann inserted that this process should help justify why a site
would be selected based on the criteria in the zoning code.
Brian Stumpf asked if IRET was still looking at Monticello as a potential site for
development which Steve Grittman confirmed. Glen Posusta asked if this workshop
might iron out some difficulties that would avoid controversy in the future from
surrounding property owners. Steve Grittman felt that there would still be discussion and
possible opposition, but it should help planning commission and council direct developer
inquiries to sites that better meet the criteria for high density multi- family housing.
Lloyd Hilgart indicated that he would not support rezoning at this time; he would rather
wait until there are some potential developers that come forward.
Steve Grittman reviewed some of the characteristics that would be desirable for R -4:
major arterial roadway exposure, major collector roadway frontage /access, local
Special Joint Council /Planning Commission Minutes — November 25, 2013 Page 1
community amenities (parks, trails), compatible land uses nearby (commercial,
institutional), and lack of incompatible land use nearby (single family residential, heavy
industrial). Clint Herbst commented that single family residential should not disqualify a
piece of land. Brian Stumpf suggested that back yards of single family homes may not
create an incompatible situation, such as the homes across from Outlot A of Country
Club Manor. Brad Fyle suggested that higher end apartments may not want to be so
close to the freeway. Bill Spartz suggested that number of units and /or height may be a
detractor in some cases. Clint Herbst pointed out that the R -4 zoning has some built -in
guidelines on density per acre. Clint Herbst also noted that high end amenity
developments may need to build with more units and greater height to snake the financial
plan work.
Steve Grittman introduced some potential R -4 sites that were discussed during his
presentation.
Site 1) Country Club Manor — Outlot A
PROS: freeway exposure, county road access, current R -3 zoning, some higher density
in area, exposure only to back yard of lower density housing.
CONS: adjacent to single family, no close freeway access, no nearby commercial.
Steve Grittian pointed out that the city has indicated in the past that some of this land
could be used if a future freeway exchange was developed at County Road 39. Clint
Herbst was reluctant to target this site because of the potential for an interchange
development. Brian Stumpf added that the area is close to Bertram Chain of Lakes park
and downtown and it is served by a new road system. Tom Perrault felt it would be more
desirable if development occurred closer to Elm Street rather than Golf Course Road.
Otter Creek Crossings — commercial land
PROS: Glen Posusta asked about the opposite (south) side of the freeway with the
exposure it would have.
CONS: No good access to freeway, across the street from industrial uses.
Consensus was that this land would not be desirable for high end multi- family housing.
In addition, it could fall into the perimeter of land needed for a future freeway exchange.
Charlotte Gabler questioned whether the city might want to add criteria to restrict R -4
zoning with a certain distance of a freeway exchange, existing or potential.
Site 2) 7th Street East — west of The Bluffs apartments
PROS: Freeway exposure, collector road frontage, higher density in area, no low density,
nearby commercial.
Special Joint Council /Planning Commission Minutes — November 25, 2013 Page 2
CONS: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan has identified this as "places to shop" - a mix
of light industrial and commercial, significant high density nearby, no immediate freeway
access.
Steve Grittman pointed out that while the vast majority of studies show that high- density
housing in and of itself does not precipitate a decrease in property values, an over
concentration of high density housing may decreases property values and often correlates
with higher crime rates. Clint Herbst feels that a high end developer would choose a
different site that better suits the amenities they want to offer. Brian Stumpf expressed
some concern about designating this site as R -4 with future development of the Fallon
overpass and changes to 7t" Street in that area.
Site 3) Meadow Oak Avenue — north of Resurrection Church
PROS: Freeway exposure and access, compatible land uses in area, no exposure to lower
density, nearby commercial.
CONS: Consumes otherwise prime commercial, access would be from a local street that
serves single family homes.
Tom Perrault does not consider this prune commercial as it is situated near residential
and is also close to schools. Although it would increase traffic, it would not go through
neighborhoods. Clint Herbst feels that would be suitable for a hotel so would probably
work for multi- family too. Brian Stumpf thinks this could be a good R -4 site and a good
transition to the freeway. Charlotte Gabler questioned whether this would be a desirable
sightline from the freeway as traffic goes by. Steve Grittman pointed out that the grade
and angles of the freeway in this area do not provide great visibility of this property.
Angela Schumann stated it should be possible to add conditions to a CUP with this being
such a highly visible site from the interstate. Lloyd Hilgart noted that the size of the
project on 12 acres may be an issue if it were all developed into multi - family housing
units.
Site 4) Vacant land between Cedar Street and Edmonson Avenue — City /Lundsten
rp operty
PROS: Compatible area land use, no exposure to lower density, nearby commercial.
CONS: Consumes valuable commercial, no exposure to arterial roads, exposure to
industrial areas.
Council did not think these parcels would be good choices for R -4 development.
Groveland commercial strip — along Chelsea Road West
PROS: Glen Posusta suggested this because of proximity to freeway access, nearby
commercial, already bermed.
Special Joint Council /Planning Commission Minutes — November 25, 2013 Page 3
CONS: Single family residential nearby toward the east end.
Comments were somewhat positive and suggested that they may want to take a closer
look at the land in that area. They will need to address some transition to the single
family residences. Consensus was that there may be potential for R -4 development but
may create some resistance from nearby residential owners.
Tom Perrault also mentioned looking at the land occupied by the pawn shop if that were
to be redeveloped.
Site 5) Featherstone (unplatted) - near 85tH Avenue
PROS: No nearby development, no exposure to lower density, commercial in area.
CONS: Detached from community, no exposure to arterial roads, no nearby amenities.
Clint Herbst commented that it should be easy to allow someone to locate there without
too much opposition. General consensus was that a developer is not as likely to choose a
site this far out at this time. Brad Fyle thought that the country view might be more
desirable than the freeway.
Clint Herbst summarized the workshop by noting that there appears to be a willingness to
look at various sites in the city as potential for R -4 zoning. Jeff O'Neill asked if there
would be a point where rezoning would take place in advance of development. Steve
Grittman explained that he thought it would be helpful to gather the information that was
provided through the discussion and lay that out. Perhaps staff could rank some of the
sites and let the planning commission review the potential for rezoning of any specific
sites as an R -4 district. Consensus of council is to not do any rezoning up front until the
city is approached with a development proposal.
Jeff O'Neill pointed out that most of those sites will need a super majority approval for
making a comp plan amendment consistent with the zoning request. Charlie Pfeffer
stated that most developers would not want to run the rezoning and CUP approval at the
same time.
4. Adi ournment
TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING AT 6:52
P.M. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Recorder: Catherine M. Shuman ayo)
Approved: December 9, 2013
Attest:
� t inistrator
Special Joint Council /Planning Commission Minutes — November 25, 2013 Page 4